Buttafleye Ministry Interactive Bible Study (IBS). Here
As pointed out earlier, there were a large number of different groups/sects of Jews during the life and ministry of Yeshua. As often happens, there are also sub-groups that develop when a group develops to some significant size. As the Pharisees appear to be the majority group within first-century Judaism or at least get the most attention in the Gospels, let’s take a closer look at some of what is known about them and where Yeshua may have fit in with them. J.K. McKee in his book Introduction To Things Messianic says:
It is probable that Hillel was probably deceased by the time that Yeshua the Messiah began His ministry, but Hillel’s followers were most certainly still alive. You can probably already see a few parallels between Hillel’s teachings and those of Yeshua, just from cursory memory. This is not to say that Hillel’s teachings are those of Yeshua’s or vice versa, but it is to say that Yeshua did very much teach like a Jewish Rabbi of His time. When He spoke to the Pharisees about applications of Torah commandments, and seemingly had strong disagreements about them, He may very well have entered into internal debates between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. Certainly, as Yeshua dealt with people with a fallen sin nature, there was legalism present in both Hillelites and Shammaites, so Yeshua could just as well be criticizing followers of Hillel as opposed to just followers of Shammai. But let us not assume that the Messiah is criticizing all Pharisees without having the appropriate background information.
Because Pharisaical theology profoundly impacted the theology of the First Century ekklēsia, it is important for us to understand that there were different types of Pharisees in the milieu of First Century Judaism. Many Christians have failed to consider this in their examinations of the Gospels, and in the corrections that Yeshua issued to the Pharisees. When we examine various issues related to Torah observance, and what has historically been interpreted by Christian theologians as a rebuke by Yeshua of the Torah—as opposed to Torah application—it will be very important for us to remember the different types of Pharisees that existed in His day.
Moseley, later in his aforementioned book, says, “The teachings of Jesus had more in common with the teachings of the Pharisees, especially the school of Hillel, than with any other group of his time.” Another fascinating source of information is Harvey Falk’s book Jesus The Pharisee: A New Look At The Jewishness Of Jesus. In commenting on Falk’s work, despite considering it “a less than scholarly argumentation”, André LaCocque states in his book Jesus The Central Jew: His Times And His People:
The author focuses in his thesis on a severe clash in Jesus’ day between the so-called house of Shammai and the house of Hillel. Falk is convinced that Jesus was a “Hillelite” in conflict with the “Shammaite Pharisees” (deceptively called “the Pharisees” in the gospel).
A good example of Falk’s theological basis for this is found in this excerpt from his book, which relates to the matter of Yeshua healing on the Sabbath (as already covered earlier in this message). Says Falk:
The Gospel (Matthew 12:9-14) then relates that Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, and was criticized by the Pharisees for doing so. Since Jesus evidently healed through prayer, this incident appears to refer to a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over whether it is permitted to pray for the sick on the Sabbath (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14); Bet Hillel permitted such prayer, and Bet Shammai forbade it. Jesus concludes his argument with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath by stating, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” In addition to prayer for the sick, this would allude to other disputes between the two schools, such as where Bet Shammai rule that it is forbidden on the Sabbath to promise charity for the poor in the synagogue, even for the marriage of orphans, nor may betrothals be arranged, nor may discussion be held for a youngster’s education, nor may mourners be comforted or the sick visited, while Bet Hillel permit all of these (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14 and Shabbat 12A).
In the Talmud this distinction between Shammai and Hillel is discussed. They even have a disagreement over whether or not it is permitted to kill head lice on Shabbat! If Yeshua were a Pharisee, certainly He, like Paul, was among the House of Hillel. It is worthy to note, however, that these two schools of Pharisees had many conflicts and without knowing this Christians have erred in demonizing all Pharisees and making the term “Pharisee” a disparaging term. “Modern Pharisees” is what most Christians call someone they disagree with, especially if they are (often wrongly) addressing someone they wish to label legalistic or a Judaizer. This is because the general term Pharisee in “New Testament” writings—without the distinction between Hillelite and Shammaite Pharisees—is as misunderstood in plain reading of English Bibles by American Christians as is the general use of the term law without distinctions made as to what refers to Torah and what refers to man-made religious or civil laws of the first century in those same “New Testament” writings. The reality is that the conflicts between Hillelite Pharisees and Shammaite Pharisees is much more like the disputes between Calvinst and Arminian Protestants than it is “Jesus and all Christians” against the whole of Jews and Judaism. So, perhaps it’s not such a bad thing to be a Pharisee after all. Consider what Brad H. Young, Ph.D., a graduate professor at Oral Roberts University who received his doctoral degree at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, says in his book Jesus The Jewish Theologian:
Unfortunately, the image of the Pharisee in modern usage is seldom if ever positive. Such a negative characterization of Pharisaism distorts our view of Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity. Little recognition is given to the Pharisees and their contributions to religious thought. For example, we Christian scholars accept the fact that the Pharisees built a foundation for later rabbinic Judaism but downplay their influence upon Christian theology. But the theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought. The Pharisees’ strong beliefs, spanning from the doctrine of God to the resurrection of the dead, have influenced Christian belief in a much greater measure than is commonly recognized. Theologically, the early Christians were very close to the Pharisees. Certainly Jewish thought was greatly diversified during the Second Temple period, and the Pharisees were among the many influential religious movements of the time. Here in order to appreciate fully the parable of Jesus, we must appreciate the positive aspects of Pharisaism. The Pharisee’s key role in the drama of the story must be fully appreciated. The Pharisee represents piety and holiness and not self-righteous hypocrisy.
Many have also considered, with what is known of the group, that the teachings of Yeshua resembled in some ways the beliefs and teachings of the Essenes. This seems logical as there is no actual mention of the group in Scripture, so it could be assumed that Yeshua never engaged in rebuking those in that group. This is all speculation, however, based on what scholars have discovered about the Essenes and then comparing those things to the life and ministry of Yeshua. There are beliefs found in the group that is also strikingly different than those held by Yeshua.
One of the groups named by Moseley earlier was the Galileans, and we know that Yeshua was from Galilee. Another was the Nazarenes, and we know that this is the group of Believers in Yeshua chronicled in the Book of Acts.
Many times a focus is placed on one where Yeshua rebuked the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other groups of Jews in His day, but there were times when He commended them as well. We must not forget this. The appearance is that Yeshua, unlike the “Jesus” of modern Christianity, was a member of all religious divisions of His day and at the same time a member of none of them. He is the Messiah! As such, He stood in the midst of His people and told them all where they were getting it right and where they were getting it wrong. This is not unlike those in the United States today who stand between the political parties of Republicans, Democrats, and all of the smaller parties and commend what they get right while rebuking what they get wrong. Yeshua is, after all, called our mediator by the Apostle Paul (see 1 Timothy 2:5). Whether or not He actually belonged to the Hillelite Pharisee or Essene sects, and regardless that His beliefs and teachings were more in harmony with those two groups than other Jewish sects, it is wrong to label any of the first-century Jewish groups as self-righteous and legalistic hypocrites the way most Christians today do.
Let me further illustrate this by telling where I generally feel like I stand within the multitude of Christian divisions or denominations in existence today. There are, after all, well over 40,000 Christian denominations, which is rather incredible considering that modern Christianity has only existed for 500 years (for those who are not sure what I mean by that, the Protestant Reformation started 500 years ago, and all modern Christian denominations, including non-denominational modern Christian groups, stem from this one event). Even if we split the Pharisees into the houses of Shammai and Hillel, referring back again to the list given by Moseley, that is only 13 distinct groups of Jewish thought after thousands of years. Apparently the [Hebrew] people who wrote The Book had a lot less disagreement over what Yahweh said than modern Christians do.
Having to address people who associate me and the ministry I do with groups like Messianic Judaism or the controversial Hebrew Roots Movement, I often tell them that I am a Believer in Yahweh, a follower of Yeshua the Messiah, and a recipient of the Ruach HaKodesh, I adhere to Christian doctrines most commonly associated with Pentecostal Christian ministry, but I also hold to a Torah-observant faith. Seeing my connection with well-known Pentecostal ministries, I then get questioned about my Torah-based beliefs, and sometimes I am even called legalistic (which generally means I need to explain legalism, but that is for another discussion).
I have read written works from Charles Finney that I completely agree with, but I am not Presbyterian. I agree with the general plan of salvation that the many Baptist denominations teach, but I would never want to be associated with the Baptists because of their Calvinist beliefs like predestination, eternal security, and radical cessation of the gifts and ministry of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit), all of which I consider great heresies. I love some of the work of John Wesley, but I am not a Methodist. I have even read works from Martin Luther that I agree with, but I would never want any association with a man who spewed out some of the most hatefully filthy racist propaganda against the Jewish people that I have ever read, nor would I want to be a part of a group like the Lutheran Church that is openly ordaining homosexuals to pastor their Churches.
Years ago a guy I was in the Navy with asked me what my religion was, after declaring himself to be, “Protestant, the lenient religion.” I told him I am a Christian. He found that impossible to understand and began to argue with me that I could not be just a Christian, I had to be something, I had to belong to some denomination or faith group within Christianity. While I do not use the term Christian as much anymore to describe my religious faith because I feel like it has come to mean just about anything but the true faith held by first-century believers who were part of “The Way” mentioned in the Book of Acts, I have never really considered myself anything other than a Christian or a Believer in Yahweh, follower of Yeshua, and recipient of the Ruach HaKodesh. There are points made by practically all Christian Preachers and Jewish Rabbis I have listened to that I agree with, some more than others, and points made by all that I don’t agree with, again some more than others. I have even stumbled upon points of truth insects considered extremely controversial and even deemed to be cults by many Christians like the Seventh-Day Adventists or the Worldwide Church of God (which is based on the teachings of Herbert Armstrong and has split into many divisions since he founded the WCOG). I cite religious texts all the time written by people I don’t wholly agree with. If I had to agree with everything another Bible teacher says in order to quote them, I wouldn’t be able to quote anyone.
The point is, I could be associated with any of these groups because of some of the things I teach, and yet I am associated with none of them. Like our Messiah did within the many sects of Jews in His day, I stand in the midst of all of these groups and simply declare the truth, without regard for who accepts it and who doesn’t. You see, we only have two responsibilities to our God: 1. We are responsible for our on personal salvation and faith-walk, and 2. We are responsible to share the truth. What people do with the truth we share is completely on them, they will be the ones to answer for their acceptance or rejection of truth, including and especially Torah, when they stand before God in judgment, not you.
We know the Pharisees were not all bad. Paul was a Pharisee. Sure, he didn’t have such a great start, but he was also trained by Gamaliel in the house of Hillel, and it was this same Gamaliel who suggested to the other Jewish leaders that the movement being carried out by the Apostles may truly be from Yahweh (see Acts 5:34-39). Christians have erred in their blanket demonizing the Pharisees (and Sadducees) as a whole. They may not have gotten everything right, but they probably had a whole lot more rights than the majority of Christians today who have completely misidentified their Messiah. Whether or not Yeshua was a part of the sect of the Pharisees, He often commended them and even told His disciples that their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, showing that He recognized this group as generally being more right than wrong—perhaps especially regarding Hillelite Pharisees. Also, we must always keep in mind it was always a few select Pharisees among the leadership that He rebuked when He did, not everyone who was a part of the group. It would be a whole lot more like rebuking a handful of Christian Pastors today who are teaching in error than rebuking all Christians for simply following what their “respected leaders” taught them. If you are among the multitude of Christians that have been taught that being a “Pharisee” is some great evil, I encourage you to rethink that a bit.
Is Yeshua a Pharisee? Please include scripture to support your claim.
Leave a response below.
Who Is This Man Named "Jesus"? posted for students participating in interactive Bible study and those who are interested in learning the Biblical truth. Join
Arthur: PurposefulPoet/ Truth Ignited
Comments