Growing up in the Church, I repeatedly heard stories where missionaries encountered people who had been reading anti-Mormon literature and told them that “you wouldn’t decide on which car to buy by reading only the stuff put out by a company’s competitors – you would also read what the company that produced the car has to say to get a balanced view. The same should be true for religions.” When looking at historical sources, unfortunately, it isn’t always easy to do the same, because the religion’s own sources are no longer extant. Such was the case with the early Pharisees – a topic explored by Thomas Wayment in a recent interview at the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk. What follows here is a copost to the full interview.
In the interview, Thomas Wayment explained why the historic sources about the Pharisees must be treated with caution:
No firsthand sources have survived that tell about the rise of the Pharisees in the mid-second century BCE. Instead, information about the movement must be traced through the works of others, most notably Flavius Josephus (who was both sympathetic to the movement and shared some of their beliefs), the New Testament, and a few other scattered references that mention them.
All this is to remind the reader that what we know about the Pharisees must be viewed critically and with the skepticism that surrounds any movement whose story is told through historical sources that were subject to bias, differing conceptions, and unique agendas.
He gave a few examples, noting that Jewish historian Flavius Josephus described them as “religious hard-liners, interested in being “exact exponents of the laws,” who were also interested in holding sway” in the royal court. On the other hand, “the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the Pharisees as those who enjoyed ‘smooth things,’ meaning easy teachings. This is precisely the opposite view of them that is presented in the canonical gospels, and so the scrolls help us see that Pharisees were not universally seen as hardline religious zealots.” (This is probably also a comment on the Qumran community’s own level of zealousness.)
The most prominent examples of portrayals of the Pharisees, however, is the ones early Christians made of them:
I think that the person who reads the Gospels might come away with the opinion that the Pharisees were united in their hatred of Jesus and that Jesus only rebuked them. This would, of course, overstate the historical evidence, which shows that Pharisees “believed” in Jesus (Acts 15:5) and that some leading Christians like Paul were either of the Pharisee tradition or were sympathetic to their teachings.
The four gospels are not unanimous in their description of what things the Pharisees found offensive in Jesus’s teachings, but it appears that some of the early points of disagreement were centered on ritual purity, the miracles performed on the Sabbath, and other matters of personal and public religious observance. …
The trend to make the Pharisees the bad guys of the gospels is quite pervasive, and while this likely overstates the moments of interaction and conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, it does appear to be quite pervasive.
The reason for Matthew’s antagonism might be rather simple. In particular, his readers needed clear differentiation between their teachings and Jesus’s. With considerable overlap between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Pharisees, it is reasonable to assume that a first century author would need to offer as much clarity as possible in order for readers to make an informed choice.
A reasonable person in the first century would want clarity on a matter such as how Jesus’s teachings on the resurrection differed from those of the Pharisees, who also believed in immortality of the soul.
I’ve also read that the Pharisees made convenient scapegoats for the execution of Jesus at a time when the actual executioners (the Romans) were the major political power, thus leading Gospel writers to shift the focus to the Pharisees and other Jewish movements.
One way in which this discussion continues to be relevant is that, in many ways, early Pharisees laid the foundations of modern Judaism:
During the medieval period, the rabbis traced their intellectual heritage to the Pharisees—but that is a connection that was made later. Perhaps if we are to think of the rabbis and Pharisees as “the same,” our thinking would need to focus on the concept that they were both deeply committed to living the Law and teaching it correctly. …
When the rabbis began tracing their lineage to the Pharisees, it signaled a moment in history when the religious elites of a later generation saw value in aligning themselves with a respectable and notable past.
There are good reasons to think that the rabbis saw themselves as part of a noble heritage, a vibrant intellectual past, and a faithful people. This should cause all those who have maligned the Pharisees to pause and consider just what the Pharisees mean to the Jewish people. Certainly they carry the unfortunate stigma of the gospel authors’ wrath, but I think many Christians today would applaud their commitment to maintaining the purity of their ancestral beliefs.
The Pharisees were likely less villainous than we think and are an honored part of the Jewish tradition.
For more on the question of “who were the Pharisees?“, head on over to read the full interview with Thomas Wayment at From the Desk.
My own study of the pharisees paints a pretty dark picture of them. Jesus rebukes the scribes and pharisees quite sharply even calling the a generation of vipers which translated correctly is calling them sons of perdition. They were just as Jesus described them-
“27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” (Matt. 23:27)
Some may not realize but one of the entire reasons Jesus taught in parables was so that he could speak in a type of code where the pharisees are almost always those spoken of in his parables who Christ won’t save (the tares, the goats, the foolish virgins, the supposed “good” son in the prodigal son, etc). His rebuke in chapter 23 is directed at them specifically though because he will soon be turned over by them to the authorities to be crucified. We must remember that these are the very men, after witnessing so many miracles and knowing him to be the Christ, deny him and want him dead because he threatens their worldly stature and authority. They also tried to kill Lazurus after Christ raised him from death because of that threat to their society. The pharisees of Christ’s time were the very epitome of evil.
So, Paul was the very epitome of evil to the end of his life?
Kibs, have you done any study of the Pharisees besides reading the New Testament? If not, you have no better understanding of them than any other random internet commenter. Your hyperbole in calling the Pharisees of Christ’s time “the very epitome of evil” is uncalled for. As far as I know, the Pharisees weren’t, for example, mass murderers.
Why did Christ rebuke the Pharisees? Why did he and John the baptist have a such a disdain for the pharisees. The pharisees Christ refers to in his gospel were worse than murderers, they deny the very Christ when He plainly manifests himself to them.
Let’s not call evil good.
Referring to the OP, why did Christ rebuke the Pharisees? “The reason for Matthew’s antagonism might be rather simple. In particular, his readers needed clear differentiation between their teachings and Jesus’s. With considerable overlap between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Pharisees, it is reasonable to assume that a first century author would need to offer as much clarity as possible in order for readers to make an informed choice.” There’s something to say about people being the most picky about those who agree the most with them. In my experience, for example, Latter-day Saints are much harsher towards ex-members than they are towards the average Christian. It’s a similar principle at play here-Jesus and his followers found a lot in common with the Pharisees and wanted to call out the aspects on which they differed.
As far as the comment, “they deny the very Christ when He plainly manifests himself to them,” I wouldn’t say that he was super plain in His manifestation—He even actively told disciples not to say that He was the Messiah (the Messianic Secret) and came in the form of a common man. Put yourself in the Pharisees’ shoes. It’s comparable to say that for the faithful member of the Church today, He was someone like Christopher Nemelka, Denver Snuffer Jr., or James Harmston—a person who was recognizably practicing and preaching a version of the same religion and occasionally making big claims about his authority, but on the fringes of the faith. Some were able to discern that he was the Christ, but most did not.
Let’s not call normal humanity, with its mix of good and bad, unadulterated evil either.
Not all Pharisees were bad, there were good pharisees. From what we can discern, the upper organizational heads, chief priests, etc, were bad. It is those that Christ rebuked.
I will believe the scriptures over many other opinions of man.
“For an overall view of the Pharisees, both in this period and subsequently, it is not absolutely vital that we discover precisely which purity laws they obeyed and which they felt able to circumvent at which period. What matters is the ideology that motivated them to focus so strongly on purity and to relate it in any way to the purity demanded in the Temple. Here the most attractive thesis seems to me the following: faced with social, political and cultural ‘pollution’ at the level of national life as a whole, one natural reaction (with a strong sense of ‘natural’) was to concentrate on personal cleanness, to cleanse and purify an area over which one did have control as a compensation for the impossibility of cleansing or purifying an area—the outward and visible political one—over which one had none. . .
It is vital, however, that even in this period, at the height of their influence, we do not imagine the Pharisees acting, or even thinking of themselves, as a kind of secret thought-police. They were not an official body. . . They only obtained power if they colluded with or influenced another group who already possessed it.
…
Their aim, so far as we can tell, was never simply that of private piety for its own sake. Nor (one need scarcely add) was it the system of self-salvation so often anachronistically ascribed to them by Christians who knew little about the first century but a lot about the Pelagian controversy. Their goals were the honour of Israel’s god, the following of his covenant charter, and the pursuit of the full promised redemption of Israel. . .
[I]t is clear from the broad drift . . . that there were major divisions within the movement, and it is highly likely that one of the key issues concerned precisely the extent to which involvement in practical politics in general, and in revolution in particular, was appropriate for members of the movement. . .
the Pharisees’ belief was as follows: Israel’s god will act; but loyal Jews may well be required as the agents and instruments of that divine action. This fits completely with all the other evidence we have studied, and indeed hints at the further debate within Pharisaism itself, with Hillel (and Gamaliel, as in Acts 5:33–9) inclining more in the direction of leaving the issue to Israel’s god, and Shammai (and Saul of Tarsus) wanting to act as the means of that divine intervention.
…
The Pharisees remain a complex and elusive group.”
Wright, N. T.. New Testament People God V1: Christian Origins And The Question Of God
Generally, the chief priests were Sadducees, not Pharisees. The Sadducees controlled the operation of the Temple. Pharisees and Sadducees were often at odds, but some (many?) found common ground in opposing Jesus.
I think Jesus’ beef with the Pharisees was their emphasis on the letter of the law, with no space for the spirit. I think the pharisaical tendency exists in many human organizations and in most religious communities. We must always beware the leaven of the Pharisees. Some might feel it is among us today to some degree.
I think the most defining moment is when Christ basically calls them murderers as recorded in Mark 3
“1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.”
The reference “to save a life” was himself. The phrase “or to kill” was in reference to the pharisees who immediately afterwards dought forth plans to kill Christ.
That is how wicked the pharisees were. And, why Christ couldn’t save them.
Kibs, if you believe that “Not all Pharisees were bad, there were good pharisees,” I would recommend being more specific in how you talk about them in the future. For example, when you say “That is how wicked the pharisees were. And, why Christ couldn’t save them,” it still comes across as you feel like that statement applies to all Pharisees (again, that would be ironic because it would be a statement that Jesus was incapable of saving Paul). And part of the reactions you’re getting here is because it’s that type of broad-stroke generalizations about the actions of a few individuals who were Jewish that have been a common touchstone for generalized anti-Semitism in the Christian tradition over the centuries.
I don’t think that’s what is going on in your head based on the comment about there being good Pharisees, but the way you’re talking elsewhere in the conversation very much sounds like it is.
Chad,
The pharisees Jesus addressed and had conflict with were bad people. Just like in most groups or religions there are good people. But the certain pharisees Jesus had issues with were basically the devils children. The term “generation of vipers” means “sons of the serpent” and Satan is that serpent. The parable of the wheat and the tares has layers of meaning. First and foremost, the tares Christ refers to are the very pharisees he previously labeled as children of satan. When Christ refers to their punishment he uses the term “greater damnation” meaning the eternal damnation awaiting the devil and his angels.
Thanks, Ivan, that’s a good addition to the discussion.
If Wright is right about the Pharisees seeking to invoke divine action via ritual obedience, then Jesus and the Pharisees promoted conflicting visions of what the Messiah was supposed to be. The Savior’s universal and non-worldly Messianism would be fatal to the Pharisaic project and cut off their national hope (and perhaps even their national identity.) Conflict was likely inevitable. That does make the Pharisees, collectively, the enemy of Jesus’ work, notwithstanding the good individuals among them.
The implications of a group’s raison d’etre exist independent of our judgment of its individual members. It is pedantic to respond to “the Pharisees were bad” with “so you think Paul was bad, hmmmmmm?”as if Paul were representative of the Pharisee’s essential logic and the implications thereof.
May I someday have the confidence to boldly pass judgment that “Christ could not save” a group of people’s souls, and the wisdom to know that judgment is the Lord’s.
I have been mulling over whether to respond to this thread, especially particularly comments about the evil state of the Pharisees. Probably no one will read this now, since I am a few days late.
I want to ask this question: When Jesus is angry at the Pharisees (and others) and he makes these strong statements, what is your emotional response? Take for example the references to the scribes and Pharisees from Mathew 23:
Mathew 23: 4-6. “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues.
(Obviously this is not a King James Version, but it works.)
And Matthew 23:15. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
And Mathew 23: 29-33. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”
Really, one could quote the entirety of Mathew 23. Such severe judgment! And because it comes from Jesus directly we don’t question it. I don’t.
But again, let me ask this: What is your response to this tongue-lashing? Do you find yourself thinking: “Yes, Jesus, Yes! Go get’em! They deserve this! Lay it on! About time someone tells them off!”
I do not believe that the purpose of the scriptures is to help me criticize and judge others. I think that when I read a passage, I should not think this: “Oh my, oh my! Certainly my sister needs to read this! She is so deeply wrong, and this scripture makes it clear. SHE NEEDS TO READ THIS!!!”
To read scriptures from the point of view of judging others can be harmful. Harmful to me. The scriptures should call ME to repentance! Not my sister!!
Rather, when I read these passages, I believe that I should hang my head in shame and realize that Jesus could be talking to me! Not to others! TO ME! Have I been sufficiently generous to those in need? What was my motivation in serving my mission? Was I proud of my accomplishments when I sat on the stand as a bishop or High Councilor?
Rather than focus on how evil any particular person or group is portrayed in the scriptures, I believe that our primary purpose is to make sure that we are not out of step with God. We ought to point the finger at us. Not at others.
Yes, Christ teaches us how we ought to be. He is saying to follow him, to do the works he does, to not be like the pharisees because he can’t save that type of person. When I read the scriptures it’s really clear for me. We should be very responsible in calling good good and evil evil. There are many today that play into the subtlety of evil by calling evil good, or at least laying the foundation for it.
This is done by first stating that the pharisees weren’t really that bad, the gospels of the NT were biased, etc, etc. The subtle inferences that the pharisees Jesus rebuked “were likely less villainous than we think and are an honored part of the Jewish tradition” would naturally lead one to question the validity of scripture and place academia’s understanding above the scriptures itself. In my opinion, this very thing is exactly what leads to becoming just like the pharisees and disbelief in Christ. Remember this- Satan’s number one goal is to get people to disregard scripture and instead look to man alone for understandng. Instead of actually quoting scripture, they go to other sources of academia to bolster their case against. But against what? Christs very word! Be careful of the trap. All Satan has to do is get you to doubt scripture, doubt Christ’s word and slowly he leads you captive in his chains down to hell.
The bottom line is, don’t be like the pharisees who thinking to do right ended up doing the most evil, the very type Christ cannot save.
The portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospels is a caricature, and like all good caricatures it exaggerates something real in order to make a point. The point is not “Wow, look at how bad those Pharisees were! Good thing we’re not like them!” Rather it is to help us identify and purge the Pharisaical tendencies in our own hearts. Focusing on appearances and conspicuous rule-following; judging accordingly and looking down on others; casting out those who struggle rather than helping them; etc.
It’s a critical part of the Gospels because we are intended to respond to Christ’s teachings and sacrifice with religious zeal, but the Pharisees are a reminder of how religious zeal can go wrong.
Last year when I taught Sunday School I studied the NT quite a lot. The conclusions I came to and taught to the youth was pretty much “don’t be like the pharisees ” because you can’t be saved if you become like them.
The biggest and damning thing the pharisees were guilty of was losing the light of Christ entirely and allowing Satan to overcome them. They were indeed guilty of the unpardonable sin because they denied Christ after he showed forth himself and all his good works to them. The HG testified in their hearts he was indeed the Christ and they denied it and wanted to kill him.
You’ve made your point Kibs. To prevent endless rounds of the same comments being repeated over and over, I think I’m going to shut down comments here.