TECHNICAL STUDY---- JESUS AND PAUL PHARISEES??? #1

 Jesus and Paul - Pharisees? #1

Some say they were - my Answer

                                                    Keith Hunt

A certain teaching is going about from those who have an axe to

grind for their particular religious life style and/or feast

observance.

I feel it is time to stop their mouths from leading people astray

and into confusion.

The false teaching that is being preached is that JESUS WAS AN

ORTHODOX JEW who taught that we should follow and obey the

religious instructions of the PHARISEES. This teaching includes

the idea that Paul the apostle was a good practicing Pharisee who

would have then observed the Passover on the 15th of Abib or

Nisan and Pentecost on Sivan the 6th.

I have been sent an article which title reads "YESHUA WAS AN

ORTHODOX JEW" and immediately quotes Mat.23:1-3. The article

starts out this way: 

     "Most people today, when they read this scripture, they fail

     to realize the full impact of what is written. Yeshua was

     actually preaching to his disciples that he wanted them to

     obey the religious instructions and laws which the Pharisees

     taught. Just because there were SOME Pharisees who abused

     their positions as leaders does not mean that the Pharisees

     as a sect were wrong in their teachings. Nor does it dismiss

     that Yeshua clearly said to OBSERVE AND DO WHATEVER 

    THEY SAY. Yeshua was not giving a bad piece of advice here when

     he said to follow the Pharisees' teaching: he was giving the

     conditions that each person must meet in order to keep his

     words and be his disciples."(Emphasis theirs).

A few sentences later the article says:

     "Neither were the Pharisees unrighteous people. They were as

     Yeshua said, the ones who sat in Moses' seat. They had the

     right teaching on the law of Moses, and were biblically

     correct in their religious beliefs, practices, and teachings. 

     In fact, even Yeshua HIMSELF WAS A PHARISEE..."

     (Emphasis mine).

If at this point if you should shout "NO WAY WAS JESUS A

PHARISEE" - the article quickly calls you anti-Semitic and a

person who hates the Jews: 

     "What people have done down through time is misunderstood

     and thought that Yeshua did not like the Pharisees or their

     religion. This attitude, however, is merely another form of

     anti-Semitism. People who go around putting down the

     Pharisees and hide behind Yeshua to do it are only doing so

     because they hate the Jews."

To try to prove that Jesus was a Pharisee the article eliminates

Jesus as a Sadducee, Essene, or a Zealot by the things they

taught and did. And because Jesus agreed with certain things that

the Pharisees taught (like a resurrection) they conclude "....we

see that Yeshua was PERFECTLY in unity with them" (emphasis

mine).

They quote Luke 13:31 to try and prove Jesus was a Pharisee

because certain Pharisees warned Him that Herod was out to kill

Him. They say, "This shows that Yeshua was a Pharisee Himself,

for when we understand how the Pharisees thought and lived their

lives, it becomes evident that Yeshua was a Pharisee." They try

to give you other verses to prove that Jesus was a Pharisee WHILE

completely ignoring OTHER verses that would contradict their

theory. The article is full of "tunnel vision" - reading the

Bible with blinkers over the eyes as some horses must do while

racing so they will not see all around them. Because they THINK

that Pharisee were "separated ones" who would not be seen dead

with a non Pharisee, and as they did talk to Jesus, so Jesus must

have been a Pharisee. With this reasoning I guess we must believe

that John the Baptist was a Pharisee also because many of the

Pharisees came to his baptisms (Mat.3:1-7). And I guess by the

same reasoning the Sadducees who came with the Pharisees to

John's baptisms were not really Sadducees at all but Pharisees in

pretence as Sadducees.

In another bit of poor research or no research at all they claim,

"The Pharisees continued to exist after the destruction of the

Temple and Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and were eventually the ONLY

surviving Jewish sect." (emphasis theirs). I guess they have

never heard of the Karite Jewish sect still in full existence.

They are correct when they show that Pharisaism evolved into

"what is known today as Orthodox Judaism."

Now listen to this from their so called NT deductions, "The

Orthodox of today even still call themselves Hasidim, as did the

Pharisees, just before the Maccabees. So, to say that Yeshua was

a Pharisee, is the same as saying that he was a Hasidic Jew, or

Orthodox Jew. He lived an Orthodox Jewish life. He commanded his

disciples to live an Orthodox Jewish life, and that command still

holds for us today."

The writer/s of this article sees that many believing Jews  were

ZEALOUS OF THE LAW(Acts 21:20) and so conclude "....these were

Pharisees, as were all the followers of Yeshua and the apostles

throughout their entire generations - Orthodox Jews."

Because they correctly understand that it was the Pharisees who

established and controlled synagogue worship during Jesus' time

leads them to dogmatically claim, "The fact that Yeshua, Paul,

and the apostles attended Synagogue services shows that they were

Pharisees, or Orthodox."

As we get to the end of this article we really begin to see the

CULTIC teaching of this particular group of Jews. They state:

"This brings us to development of Orthodox Judaism. As time went

on, the Pharisees became known as Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Judaism

was the only sect of Judaism until more recent centuries, when   

Reform and Conservative Judaism came about .... The apostles were

those who had the full truth of Yahweh in their day, but even

they did not cease to call themselves Pharisees."

Now I can only find the apostle Paul calling himself  a Pharisee,

yet they claim the apostleS called themselveS Pharisees.

The article ends with these words: "The Apostles were ORTHODOX

MESSIANIC JEWS, and likewise must Yeshua's true followers still

be today: ORTHODOX MESSIANIC JEWS'" (emphasis mine and theirs).

There you have it all summed up - if you are not an ORTHODOX

Messianic Jew - one of them, a part of their group - you are not

a true follower of Jesus.

Most scholars and editors of religious magazines would never GIVE

THE TIME OF DAY to such articles from obvious religious fanatical

cults and sects who believe they and they alone are the true

followers of Jesus. There are many such groups out there who

claim to be the "only ones" of Christ. I'm sure Jim Jones and his

elite thought the same about 15 years ago and the recent Wacko

group in Waco Texas believed that they and their followers were

the special "unique" ones of God, the true followers of Jesus.

Well I am giving the time of day to answer these deceivers

BECAUSE a man that many of you are familiar with and that many of

you receive literature from, is in MANY WAYS saying the same

thing as these Orthodox Messianic Jews are saying.

His name - WILLIAM F. DANKENBRING!!

William D. has written an article called "WAS THE APOSTLE PAUL 

A LIAR:" He tries to show his readers that because Paul at one time

did say "I am Pharisee" while being a Christian, this gives proof

that Paul observed a Passover on the 15th and a Sivan 6th Pentecost, 

which the Pharisees practiced.

I shall go through the whole two page article later, dissecting

it bit by bit and so showing you the clever deceitfulness of this

man's writings, but at this time I will give you some of his

words:

     "The apostle Paul, of course, was a Pharisee. Did the

     apostle Paul deliberately 'lie,' and bear false witness      

     ..... As a strict Pharisee, all his life he observed

     Pentecost on the same day as all the Pharisees did - Sivan

     6... Paul, who himself was a Pharisee, and who was brought

     up and taught at the feet of the leading Pharisee of his

     day, Gamaliel. Paul says, 'I am verily  a man which am a

     Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, yet brought up in

     this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and TAUGHT according to

     the PERFECT MANNER OF THE LAW of the fathers' (Acts 22:3). 

    Do we dare believe that the apostle Paul was a LIAR?"

Dankenbring quotes Paul's words in Philippians 3:4-6 and

emphasizes the last part this way: "....AS TOUCHING THE LAW, A

PHARISEE; concerning zeal persecuting the church; TOUCHING THE

RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS IN THE LAW, BLAMELESS."

Then he goes on to say, "But how could this be? If the Pharisees

were IN ERROR on Pentecost and its calculation, then Paul could

not have been 'blameless' as concerns the Law of God, the divine

instructions for Pentecost!"

The last paragraph of W.F.D. contains these words: "Jesus Christ

himself stated plainly, 'the scribes and Pharisees SIT IN MOSES'

SEAT: All therefore whatsoever THEY(not the Sadducees) bid you

observe, that observe and do! (Mat 23:2-3). The Pharisees were

the true authorities for interpreting the laws of God....."

(emphasis his).

It is now time to answer this subject in full detail. I shall

begin with giving the reader a detailed expose concerning the

basic beliefs and practices of the Sadducees and Pharisees.

LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH - by Alfred Edersheim

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION

(Starting on page 314)

QUOTE:

The fundamental dogmatic differences between the Pharisees and

Sadducces concerned: the rule of faith and practice; the after

death; the existence of angels and spirits; and free will and

predestination. 

In regard to the first of these points, it has already been

stated that the Sadducces did not lay down the principle of

absolute rejection of all traditions as such, but that they were

opposed to traditionalism as represented and carried out by the

Pharisees. When put down by sheer weight of authority, they would

probably carry the controversy further, and retort on their

opponents by an appeal to Scripture as against their traditions,

perhaps ultimately even by an attack of traditionalism; but

always as represented by the Pharisees. 

A careful examination of the statements of Josephus on this

subject will show that they convey no more than this. The

Pharisaic view of this aspect of the controversy appears,

perhaps, most satisfactorily, because indirectly, in certain

sayings of the Mishnah, which attribute all national calamities

to those persons, whom they adjudge to eternal perdition, who

interpret Scripture 'not as does the Halakhah,' or established

Pharisaic rule. In this respect, then, the commonly received idea

concerning the Pharisees and Sadducces will require to be

seriously modified. 

As regards the practice of the Pharisees as distinguished from

that of the Sadducees, we may safely treat the statements of

Josephus as the exaggerated representations of a partisan, who

wishes to place his party in the best light. It is, indeed, true

that the Pharisees,  'interpreting the legal ordinances with

rigour,' imposed on themselves the necessity of much self-denial,

especially in regard to food, but that their practice was under

the guidance of 'reason' as Josephus asserts; is one of those

bold mis-statements with which he has too often to be credited.

His vindication of their special reverence for age and authority

must refer to the honours paid by the party to 'the Elders,' not

to the old. And that there was sufficient ground for Sudducean

opposition to Pharisaic traditionalism, alike ill principle and

in practice, will appear from the following quotation, to which

we add, by way of explanation, that the wearing of phylacteries

was deemed by that party of Scriptural obligation, and that the

phylactery for the head was to consist (according to tradition)

of four compartments. 'Against the words of the Scribes is more

punishable than against the words of Scripture. He who says, No

phylacteries, so as to transgress the words of Scripture, is not

guilty(free); five compartments - to add to the words of the

Scribes - he is guilty.'

The second doctrinal difference between Pharisees and Sadducces

concerned the 'after death.'  According to the New Testament,  

the Sadducces denied the resurrection of the dead, while

Josephus, going further, imputes to them denial of reward or

punishment after death, and even the doctrine that the soul

perishes with the body. 

The latter statement may be dismissed as among those inferences

which theological controversialists are too fond of imputing to

their opponents. This is fully borne out by the account of a

later work, to the effect, that by successive misunderstandings

of the saying of Antigonus of Socho, that men were to serve God

without regard to reward, his later pupils had arrived at the

inference that there was no outer world - which, however, might

only refer to the Pharisaic ideal of 'the world to come,' not to

the denial of the immortality of the soul - and no resurrection

of the dead. 

We may therefore credit Josephus with merely reporting the 

common inference of his party. But it is otherwise in regard to their

denial of the resurrection of the dead. Not only Josephus, but

the New Testament and Rabbinic writings attest this. 

The Mishnah expressly states that the formula 'from age to age,'

or rather 'from world to world,' had been introduced as a protest

against the opposite theory; while the Talmud, which records

disputations between Gamaliel and the Sadducces on the subject of

the resurrection, expressly imputes the denial of this doctrine

to the 'Scribes of the Sadducees.'

     

In fairness it is perhaps only right to add that, in the

discussion, the Sadducees seem only to have actually denied that

there was proof for this doctrine in the Pentateuch, and that

they ultimately professed themselves convinced by the reasoning

of Gamaliel. Still the concurrent testimony of the New Testament

and of Josephus leaves no doubt, that in this instance their

views had not been misrepresented. Whether or not their

opposition to the doctrine of the Resurrection arose in the first

instance from, or was prompted by, Rationalistic views, which

they endeavoured to support by an appeal to the letter of the

Pentateuch, as the source of traditionalism, it deserves notice

that, in His controversy with the Sadducees Christ appealed to

the Pentateuch in proof of His teaching.

Connected with this was the equally rationalistic opposition to

belief in Angels and Spirits. It is only mentioned in the New   

Testament, but seems almost to follow as a corollary.  

Remembering what the Jewish Angelology was, one can scarcely

wonder that, in controversy the Sadducees should have been led to

the opposite extreme.

The last dogmatic difference between the two 'sects' concerned 

that problem which has at all times engaged religious thinkers:

man's free will and God's pre-ordination or rather their

compatibility. 

Josephus - or the reviser whom he employed - indeed, uses the

purely heathen expression 'fate' ..... to designate the Jewish

idea of the pre-ordination of God. But, properly understood, the

real difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees seems to have

amounted to this: that the former accentuated God's

pre-ordination, the latter man's free will; and that, while the

Pharisees admitted only a partial influence of the human element

on what happened, or the co-operation of the human with the

Divine, the Sadducces denied all absolute pre-ordination, and

made man's choice of evil or good, with its consequences of

misery or happiness, to depend entirely on the exercise of free

will and self-determination. And in this, like many opponents of

'Predestinarianism,' they seem to have started from the

principle, that it was impossible for God 'either to commit or to

foresee [in the sense of fore-ordaining] anything evil.' 

The mutual misunderstanding here was that common in all such

controversies. Although Josephus writes as if, according to the

Pharisees, the chief part in every good action depended upon fate

[pre-ordination] rather than on man's doing, yet in another place

he disclaims for them the notion that the will of man destitute

of spontaneous activity, and speaks somewhat confusedly - for he

is by no means a good reasoner - of 'a mixture' of the Divine and

human elements, in which the human  will, with its sequence of

virtue or wickedness, is subject to the will of fate.....

But something more will have to be said as illustrative of

Pharisaic teaching on this subject. No one who has entered into

the spirit of the Old Testament can doubt that its outcome was

faith, in its twofold aspect of acknowledgment of the absolute

rule, and simple submission to the will of God. What

distinguished this so widely from fatalism was what may be termed

Jehorahism - that is, the moral element in its thoughts of God,

and that He was ever presented as in paternal relationship to

men. But the Pharisees carried their accentuation of the Divine

to the verge of fatalism.  Even the idea that God had created man

with two impulses, the one to good, the other to evil; and that

the latter was absolutely necessary for the continuance of this

world, would in some measure trace the causation of moral evil to

the Divine Being. The absolute and unalterable pre-ordination of

every event, to its minutest details, is frequently insisted

upon. Adam had been shown all the generations that were to spring

from him. Every incident in the history of Israel had been

foreordained, and the actors in it - for good or for evil - were

only instruments for carrying out the Divine Will.....

Similarly  was it in regard to Solomon, to Esther, to

Nebuchadnezzar, and others. Nay, it was because man was

predestined to die that the serpent came to seduce our first

parents. And as regarded the history or each individual: all that

concerned his mental and physical capacity, or that would betide

him; was prearranged. His name, place, position, circumstances,

the very name or her whom he was to wed, were proclaimed in

heaven, just as the hour of his death was fore-ordered. There

might be seven years of pestilence in the land, and yet no one

died before leis time. Even if man inflicted a cut on his finger,

he might be sure that this also had been preordered.....

We can well understand how the Sadducees would oppose notions

like these, and all such coarse expressions or fatalism. And it

is significant of the exaggeration of Josephus, that neither the

New Testament, nor Rabbinic writings, bring the charge of the

denial or God's provision against the Sadducees.

But there is another aspect of this question also. While the

Pharisees thus held the doctrine of absolute preordination, side

by side with it they were anxious to insist on man's freedom of

choice, his personal responsibility, and moral obligation.  

Although every event depended upon God, whether a man served God

or not was entirely in his own choice. As a logical sequence or

this, fate had no influence as regarded Israel, since all

depended on prayer, repentance, and good works. Indeed, otherwise

that repentance, on which Rabbinism so largely insists, would

have had no meaning. Moreover, it seems as if it had been

intended to convey that, while our evil actions were entirely our

own choice, if a man sought to amend his ways, he would be helped

of God.....

 

The other differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees can be

easily and briefly summed up. They concern ceremonial, ritual,

and juridical questions. In regard to the first, the opposition

of the Sadducces to the excessive scruples of the Pharisees on

the subject of Levitical defilements led to frequent controversy.

Four points in dispute are mentioned, of which, however, three

read more like ironical comments than serious divergences. Thus,

the Sadducees taunted their opponents with their many

lustrations, including that of the Golden Candlestick in the

Temple. Two other similar instances are mentioned. By way of

guarding against the possibility of profanation, the Pharisees

enacted, that the touch of any thing sacred  'defiled' the hands.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, ridiculed the idea that the

Holy Scriptures 'defile' the hands, but not such a book as Homer.

In the same spirit, the Sadducees would ask the Pharisees how it

came, that water pouring from a clean into an unclean vessel did

not lose its purity and purifying power. If these represent no

serious controversies, on another ceremonial question there was

real difference, though its existence shows how far party-spirit

could lead the Pharisees. No ceremony was surrounded with 

greater care to prevent defilement than that of preparing the ashes 

of the Red Heifer.

What seen the original ordinance, directed that, for seven days

previous to the burning of the Red Heifer, the priest was to be

kept in separation in the Temple, sprinkled with the ashes of all

sin-offerings, and kept from the touch of his brother-priests,

with even greater rigour than the High-Priest in his preparation

for the Day of Atonement. 

The Sadducees insisted that, as 'till sundown' was the rule in

all purification, the priest must be in cleanliness still then,

before burning the Red Heifer, But, apparently for the sake of

opposition, and in contravention to  their own principles, the 

Pharisees would naturally 'defile' the priest on his way to the

place of burning, and then immediately make him take a bath of

purification which had been prepared, so as to show that the

Sadducees were in error. In the same spirit, the Sadducees seem

to have prohibited the use of anything made from animals which

were either interdicted as food, or by reason of their not having

been properly slaughtered, while the Pharisees allowed it, and,

in the case of Levitically clean animals which had died or been

torn, even made their skin into parchment, which might be used

for sacred purposes.

 

These may seem trifling distinctions, but they sufficed to kindle

the passions. Even greater importance attached to differences on

ritual questions, although the controversy here was purely

theoretical. For, the Sadducees, when in office, always conformed

to the prevailing Pharisaic practices. Thus the Sadducees would

have interpreted Lev.xxiii. 11, 15, 16, as meaning that the

wave-sheaf (or, rather, the 'Omer') was to be offered on 'the

morrow after the weekly Sabbath' that is, on the Sunday in Easter

week - which would have brought the Feast of Pentecost always on

a Sunday; while the Pharisees understood the term 'Sabbath' of

the festive Paschal day.

Connected with this were disputes about the examination of the

witnesses who testified to the appearance of the new moon, and

whom the Pharisees accused of having been suborned by their

opponents.

The Sadducean objection to pouring the water of libation upon 

the altar on the Feast of Tabernacles, led to riot and bloody

reprisals on the only occasion on which it seems to have been

carried into practice. Similarly, the Sadducees objected to the

beating  off the willow-branches after the procession round the

altar on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, if it were a

Sabbath.....

END QUOTE

In Jewish and other writings we also discover that the Pharisees

not only believed in the IMMORTAL SOUL teaching but also in the

MIGRATION of SOULS. They also believed that fallen angels in

Genesis 6 had sex with physical women.

The Pharisees had TWO main Theological teaching schools, one the

school of HILLEL AND THE OTHER OF SHAMMAI.

Concerning the matter of DIVORCE and Deuteronomy 24;1-2, the

school SHAMMAI maintained that a man could not legally put away

his wife, except for WHOREDOM. The school of HILLEL taught that a

man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes.

We shall for interest, record here the case of JOSEPHUS (the

Jewish Pharisee historian of the first century A.D.) as given by

Adam Clarke in his Bible commentary: " Josephus.... in HIS LIFE,

tells us, with the utmost: coolness and indifference, 'About this

time I put away my wife, WHO HAD BORNE ME THREE CHILDREN, 

not being pleased with her manners."'(Emphasis is Clarke's).

Obviously Josephus was of the school of Hillel, as was Rabbi

Akiba when he stated: 

     "If any man saw a woman handsomer than his

     wife, he might: put her away; because it is said in the law,

     IF SHE FIND NOT FAVOR IN HIS EYES."

The school of Shammai would vigorously disagree with the school

of Hillel on the topic of Divorce. The school of Hillel was the

most LIBERAL and so the most popular with those who followed the

Pharisees.

What I want you to remember is that the Pharisees DID NOT AGREE

AMONG THEMSELVES ON ALL POINTS OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE. 

And if this was the case as it indeed was, surely it is a LIE for anyone to

tell you that they, the Pharisees, were the teachers of the PERFECT LAW 

of God, when they OFTEN DISAGREED among themselves  on certain 

points of the law.

As you read through the writings of Josephus(the Jewish Pharisee

of the first century A.D.) you come across other teachings of at

least some of the Pharisees, teachings that are somewhat

"strange" to say the least, such as who the "sons of God" were

that married the daughters of men mentioned in Genesis 6, as I've

already mentioned. According to Josephus the Pharisee, these sons

of God were ANGELS that co-habited with women and produced

giants.

I knew that the Jehovah Witnesses of the 20th century taught     

this bazaar idea of Angels marrying women, but I did not

know (until I read it in Josephus) the same idea was taught by

many of the Pharisees.

As I have previously said, Dankenbring has become a master at

TUNNEL vision. He zeros in on a particular verse, ignores the

context, ignores other verses of the Bible that would shed light

on a particular statement of Paul, and then tells you what Paul

is saying (supposedly) even if it CONTRADICTS other statements by

Paul or another verse of God's word.

William D. has forgotten (conveniently it would seem) a number of

Bible study rules that are important if you want to find the

truth of the matter on any Scriptural topic. One rule is that

when studying Paul's writings remember, as Peter was inspired to

say, some things of Paul are HARD to UNDERSTAND, and those 

who are unlearned TWIST to their own destruction. Another rule to

correctly divide the word of truth, is to get all the verses on

any particular matter BEFORE coming to a conclusion.

Later we shall look at the many NT verses that talk about the

PHARISEES and see if they were truly the Jewish sect of religion

that understood and practiced the PERFECT law OF GOD.

 

I suggest you have a little study yourself some time and with a

Bible Concordance look up all the Scriptures in the NT where the

word Pharisee appears. Read the context of each and see if you

come to the conclusion that the Pharisee sect was the true Church

of God at the time of Christ and during the days of the Apostles.

Here is Dankenbring, a Sabbath and Feasts of God observer, yet

ministers of the Catholic and Protestant faith understood the

truth of these statements of Paul better than he does. Maybe it

is because they have no particular PET DOCTRINE (like a 15th

Passover, Sivan the 6th for Pentecost) of the Pharisees to try

and uphold.

In passing let me say this. 

It is a fact of history and knowledge that the Pharisees not only

believed in the RESURRECTION (as opposed to the Sadducees who 

did not) but they also believed in the doctrine of the IMMORTALITY 

OF THE SOUL and SOUL MIGRATION.

So if Paul was a practicing, believing Pharisee, if he had been

taught the perfect law OF GOD by the Pharisees, then Paul would

have believed and taught the "Immortal Soul" idea. And of course

many of the Catholic and Protestant ministers would say Paul DID

teach that the soul was immortal and went to heaven or hell at

death.

Maybe Dankenbring will come out with a paper showing the

Pharisees were correct in teaching the immortal soul idea. He

could take the many verses of the Bible and words of Paul and do

exactly what the Protestant minister Finis Dake did.. prove to

his readers that the soul is naturally immortal and goes to

heaven or hell at death.

Finis Dake (and others before and after) broke all the rules of

Bible study on the "immortal soul" teaching and also had TUNNEL

VISION just like Mr.D. He ignored the context many times and

NEVER once quoted to his readers the plain simple, easy to

understand verses about DEATH being a SLEEP and a person neither

acting, thinking, remembering, praising God in death. They are

there, and MANY of them, IF you are willing to read the WHOLE

Bible.

It's now time to see what some of the Protestant ministers had to

say about ACTS 22:3.

                              ...............

TO BE CONTINUED