Was Jesus a Pharisee?

Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body. In general, whereas the Sadducees were conservative, aristocratic monarchists, the Pharisees were eclectic, popular and more democratic.

9 Answers

  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    And they are all dead so what difference does it make now

    But maybe the flying head lives on;

    If you see it You must board it


  • 1 decade ago

    You are right about the democratic nature of the Pharisees. They circulated among the common people in their white prayer shawls, orally interpreting the Law. Contrary to their gospel portrayal, they could be flexible in matters of ritual purity. They even had a prohibition against formulating a statute to which the majority of the people couldn't adhere.

    Pharisees emerged in the 2nd century BC with the establishment of the Hasmonean priesthood. Unlike the Sadducees and the Samaritans, the Pharisees held the Prophets and the Writings to be as sacrosanct as the Law. Consequently, they believed in heaven, hell, angels, demons, resurrection, final judgment, and eternal life. Christianity would later adopt these precepts.

    In the time of Jesus, the Pharisees comprised half of the Sanhedrin, or ruling judgment council. However, the authority to execute had been removed from the Sanhedrin at that time. As a historical figure, Jesus can only be reconstructed by interpreting the writings of others. By contrast, we can be relatively certain that Paul, who told his own story, was proud of his Pharisee status.

    The earliest layer, Q, seems to present Jesus as a rustic, rural, wandering rabbi who had an unexpected turn of phrase; "happy are the poor" and "turn the other cheek". Odd logic, surprising reversals, and the farm and field imagery of the rural poor are the hallmarks of this rural rabbi. The Thomas-gospel has Jesus remark, "Why hearken to twenty-four dead men (the Prophets) when the living One is among you?"

    Later, the developing church would add superhuman, celestial, world-redeeming aspects to his person, but the anti-rich, unlettered simplicity of the Q sayings points to the fact that Jesus was probably poor, powerless, and uneducated. Pharisees, by contrast, could pontificate eruditely upon scriptures and learned scribes were numerous among them.

    That Jesus visciously castigated scribes and Pharisees COULD reflect the later bias of the postfall-of-the-temple gospel-writers, being that the Pharisees were the only Judaic authority to survive that fall. But it certainly isn't a stretch to say that Jesus may have had the resentment that many men harbor toward intellectuals, perceiving them to be "educated fools".

    Ultimately, it's impossible to pinpoint the historical Jesus on any but the most basic issues. If he did accept the cosmology and canon of the Pharisees and if he did orally interpret the Law, he was more like them than not. Later, Christians and Pharisees would have more in common, at least theologically, than not.

    After the fall of the temple in 70 AD, Pharisaic rabbis were given permission by the emperor Vespasian to form a judgment council at Javneh, on the coast of Judea, putting them in direct competition with the emerging messianic movement. These Pharisaic rabbis went on to formulate the Targums, the Mishnah, and the Palestinian Talmud, and eventually morphed into the rabbinic form of Judaism that is still prevalent.

    After 70 AD, the Gospel writers retrofitted their vitriol towards Pharisees into Jesus' mouth. But that withering scorn is hardly in alignment with the Kingdom agenda of inclusion and forgiveness that Jesus also appears to have advocated. Pharisees were unfairly given a bad name by the most influential book in history. They hardly deserve that vilification, in my opinion.

    Their demonization was part and parcel of the widening gap between Christians and Jews in the late 1st century. Christians were beginning to get expelled from synagogues for violating the first commandment; "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me". Their increasingly high Christology equated the rustic rabbi with God Himself. Pharisaic rabbis, in rebuttal, began to emphasize the SH'MA; that the Lord God of Israel was ONE God, not two or three.

    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    No, there is no evidence from Scripture that He was. The sect of the pharisees did not comport with the doctrines of OT theism. You may notice Christ rebuking the pharisees many times for their departure from orthodoxy.

    MAT 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

    MAT 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

    MAT 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?

    LUK 3:7 ¶ He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

  • 1 decade ago

    Some readings suggest he was likely a member of the Sicarii. (daggermen, paid assassins)

    … a different type of bandit sprang up in Jersualem, the so-called sicarii, who murdered men in broad daylight in the heart of the city. Especially during the festivals they would mingle with the crowd, carrying short daggers concealed under their clothing, with which they stabbed their enemies. Then when they fell, the murderers would join in the cries of indignation and, through this plausible behavior, avoided discovery. ~Flavius Josephus

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    No, Jesus was an Essene, which was different from both groups. (see first reference below). See the second reference below for a short comparison between these sections of Judaism. There is enough information there for you to be able to dig further.

  • D.A.M
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    No....Jesus was not a Pharisee. Pharisees actually represent the unbelievers in this world.

    Jesus represents everything that is True, Righteous and Holy.

    Praise be to our precious Lord and Savior!

    peace and love to all.................. "D"

  • 1 decade ago

    No. Neither group accepted the evident proof that he was the promised Messiah. Both groups were blind guides and oppressive to the people. He condemned both groups.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think neither one since he condemned both of them. We don't usually condemn those who believe or think the same way we do.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, he wast starting his own god club

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.