Phar´isees (Gk. from Aram. perı ̄shāʼ, “separated”).

Name The name Separatists is thought by some to have been derived from that separation that took
place in the time of Zerubbabel and then again in the time of Ezra, when Israel separated from the
pagans dwelling in the land and from their uncleanness (Ezra 6:21; 9:1; 10:11; Nehemiah 9:2; 10:29). But
this is correctly objected to on the ground that their name must have come to the Pharisees in
consequence of their stricter view of the notion of uncleanness, not only from the uncleanness of the
heathen but from that with which they believed the great portion of Israel to have been affected. This
seems to have been the sense in which they were called the separated or the separating, and they
might have been so called from either praise or blame. It is not probable that they took the name
themselves, but that their adversaries called them “the separatists.” They called themselves Ḥ ăberı̂m
(Aram. ḥ ābar, “associate”), this term being in the language of the Mishna and of ancient rabbinical
literature in general exactly identical with Perushim; a Haber in them meaning one who associates
himself with the law in order to observe it strictly in opposition to the encroachments of Hellenism.
Origin The priests and scribes determined the inner development of Israel after the captivity. Virtually
identical in Ezra’s time, they became more and more separated, until, in the Maccabaean period, two
parties sharply contrasted with each other were developed from them. The Sadducean party came from
the ranks of the priests, the party of the Pharisees from the scribes. The characteristic feature of the
Pharisees arises from their legal tendency, that of the Sadducees from their social position. When once
the accurate observance of the ceremonial law was regarded as the true essence of religious conduct,
Pharisaism already existed, but not as a distinct sect or party. It appears that during the Greek period,
the chief priests and rulers of the people took up an increasingly low attitude toward the law; the
Pharisees united themselves more closely into an association that made a duty of the law’s punctilious
observance. They appear in the time of John Hyrcanus under the name of “Pharisees,” no longer indeed
on the side of the Maccabees but in hostile opposition to them. The reason for this was that the
Maccabaeans’ chief object was no longer the carrying out of the law but the maintenance and extension
of their political power. The stress laid upon religious interests by the Pharisees had won the bulk of the
nation to their side, and Queen Alexandra, for the sake of peace with her people, abandoned the power
to the Pharisees. Their victory was now complete; the whole conduct of internal affairs was in their
hands. All the decrees of the Pharisees done away with by Hyrcanus were reintroduced, and they
completely ruled the public life of the nation. This continued in all essentials even during subsequent
ages. Amid all the changes of government under Romans and Herodians the Pharisees maintained their
spiritual authority. Consistency with principle was on their side, and this consistency procured them the
spiritual supremacy. Although the Sadducean high priests were at the head of the Sanhedrin, the
decisive influence upon public affairs was in the hands of the Pharisees. “They had the bulk of the nation
as their ally, and women especially were in their hands. They had the greatest influence upon the
congregations, so that all acts of public worship, prayers, and sacrifices were performed according to
their injunctions. Their sway over the masses was so absolute that they could obtain a hearing even
when they said anything against the king or the high priest, consequently they were the most capable of
counteracting the design of the kings. Hence, too, the Sadducees, in their official acts, adhered to the
demands of the Pharisees, because otherwise the multitude would not have tolerated them”
(Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, div. 2, 2:28).
Teachings Pharisaism thus represented the effect of Hellenism on normative Judaism; many of the
differences between it and Sadduceeism were the result of their respective reactions toward Greek
culture (cf. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity [1941], pp. 272-73). Immortality. The
Pharisees taught “that every soul is imperishable, but that only those of the righteous pass into another
body, while those of the wicked are, on the contrary, punished with eternal torment” (Josephus Wars
2.8.14); or “they hold the belief that an immortal strength belongs to souls, and that there are beneath
the earth punishments and rewards for those who in life devoted themselves to virtue or vileness, and
that eternal imprisonment is appointed for the latter, but the possibility of returning to life for the
former” (Josephus Ant. 18.1.3). The above is merely the Jewish doctrine of retribution and resurrection
(Daniel 12:2), testified to by all subsequent Jewish literature, and also by the NT, as the common
possession of genuine Judaism. Angels. The Pharisees also taught the existence of angels and spirits,
whereas the Sadducees denied them (Acts 23:8); in this respect they also represented the general
standpoint of later Judaism. Providence, Human Freedom. The Pharisees “make everything depend on
fate and on God, and teach that the doing of good is indeed chiefly the affair of man, but that fate also
cooperates in every transaction” (Josephus Wars 2.8.14). “They assert that everything is accomplished
by faith. They do not, however, deprive the human will of spontaneity, it having pleased God that there
should be a mixture, and that to the will of fate should be added the human will with its virtue or
baseness” (Josephus Ant. 18.1.3). “If we strip off its Greek form, from what Josephus says, it is nothing
more than this, that according to the Pharisees everything that happens takes place through God’s
providence, and that consequently in human actions also, whether good or bad, a cooperation of God is
to be admitted. And this is a genuine OT view” (Schürer, div. 2, 2:15). Political. “In politics the standpoint
of the Pharisees was the genuinely Jewish one of looking at political questions not from a political, but
from a religious point of view. The Pharisees were by no means a ‘political’ party, at least not directly.
Their aim, viz., the strict carrying out of the law, was not political, but religious. So far as no obstruction
was cast in the way of this, they could be content with any government. It was only when the secular
power prevented the practice of the law in that strict manner which the Pharisees demanded, that they
gathered together to oppose it, and then really became in a certain sense a political party, opposing
even external resistance to external force. To politics as such they were always comparatively
indifferent.” We must consider the Pharisee as acting under two different religious views: (1) The idea of
the Divine Providence might be made the starting point. From this concept resulted the thought that the
sway of the heathen over Israel was the will of God. Hence, this chastisement of God must be willingly
submitted to; a heathen and, moreover, a harsh government must be willingly borne, if only the
observance of the law was not thereby prevented. (2) Israel’s election might be placed in the
foreground. Then the rule of the heathen over the people of God would appear as an abnormality
whose abolition was by all means to be striven for. Israel must acknowledge no other king than God
alone and the ruler of the house of David, whom He anointed. The supremacy of the heathen was illegal
and presumptuous. From this standpoint it was questionable, not merely whether obedience and
payment of tribute to a heathen power was a duty, but whether it was lawful (Matthew 22:17-21; Mark
12:14-17; Luke 20:22-25).
Practices As an Israelite avoided as far as possible all contact with a pagan, lest he should thereby be
defiled, so did the Pharisee avoid as far as possible contact with the non-Pharisee, because the latter
was to him included in the notion of the unclean Amhaarez (i.e., Israelites other than Pharisees). When,
then, the gospels relate that the Pharisees found fault with the free interaction of Jesus with “tax-
gatherers and sinners,” and with His entering into their houses (Mark 2:14-17; Matthew 9:9-13; Luke
5:27-32), that criticism agrees exactly with the standpoint here described. The Pharisees, according to
the Talmud, were of seven kinds: (1) the Shechemite Pharisee, who simply kept the law for what he
could profit thereby, as Shechem submitted to circumcision to obtain Dinah (Genesis 34:19); (2) the
Humbling Pharisee, who to appear humble always hung down his head; (3) the Bleeding Pharisee, who in
order not to see a woman walked with his eyes closed, and thus often met with wounds; (4) the Mortar
Pharisee, who wore a mortar-shaped cap to cover his eyes that he might not see any impurities or
indecencies; (5) the What-am-I-yet-to-do Pharisee, who, not knowing much about the law, as soon as he
had done one thing, asked, “ What is my duty now? and I will do it” (cf. Mark 10:17-22); (6) the Pharisee
from Fear, who kept the law because he was afraid of future judgment; (7) the Pharisee from Love, who
obeyed the Lord because he loved Him with all his heart (Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel).
Pharisaism and Christianity Compared (1) In relation to the OT dispensation it was the Savior’s great
effort to unfold the principles that had lain at the bottom of that dispensation and carry them out to
their legitimate conclusions, to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17), to “fulfill,” not to confirm, as too many
suppose it to mean. The Pharisee taught such a servile adherence to the letter of the law that its
remarkable character, as a pointing forward to something higher than its letter, was completely
overlooked, and its moral precepts, intended to elevate men, were made rather the instruments of
contracting and debasing their ideas of morality. Thus, strictly adhering to the letter, “You shall not
commit murder,” they regarded anger and all hasty passion as legitimate (5:21-22). (2) Whereas it was
the aim of Jesus to call men to the law of God itself as the supreme guide of life, the Pharisees multiplied
minute precepts and distinctions to such an extent, upon the pretense of maintaining it intact, that the
whole life of Israel was hemmed in and burdened on every side by instructions so numerous and trifling
that the law was almost, if not wholly, lost sight of (see Matthew 12:1-13; 23:23-30; Mark 3:1-6; 7:1-
13; Luke 13:10-17; 18:9-14). (3) It was a leading aim of the Redeemer to teach men that true piety
consisted not in forms, but in substance; not in outward observances, but in an inward spirit; not in
small details, but in great rules of life. The whole system of Pharisaic piety led to exactly opposite
conclusions. Under its influence “the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness”
(Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42) were undervalued and neglected; the idea of religion as that which should
have its seat in the heart disappeared (11:38-42); the most sacred obligations were evaded (Mark 7:11-
13); vain and trifling questions took the place of serious inquiry into the great principles of duty
(Matthew 19:3; etc.); and even the most solemn truths were handled as mere matters of curious
speculation or means to entrap an adversary (22:35-36; Luke 17:20). (4) The lowliness of piety was,
according to the teaching of Jesus, an inseparable concomitant of its reality, but the Pharisees sought
mainly to attract attention and excite the admiration of men (Matthew 6:2-4, 16-18; 23:5-7; Luke 14:7-
11; 18:11-14). (5) Christ inculcated compassion for the degraded, helpfulness to the friendless; liberality
to the poor, holiness of heart, universal love, and a mind open to the truth. The Pharisees regarded the
degraded classes of society as classes to be shunned, not to be won over to the right (Luke
7:39; 15:2; 18:11), and pushed from them such as the Savior would have gathered within His fold (John
7:47-48). They made a prey of the friendless (Matthew 23:14); with all their pretense to piety they were
in reality avaricious, sensual, and dissolute (Matthew 23:25-28; John 8:7), and devoted their energies to
making converts to their own narrow views (Matthew 23:15). The exclusiveness of Pharisaism certainly
justifies its being called a sect (Gk. hairesis, Acts 15:5; 26:5). Their number, which was comparatively
small, was about six thousand. Bibliography: R. T. Herford, The Pharisees (1924); G. F. Moore, Judaism in
the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 vols. (1927-30); L. I. Finkelstein, The Pharisees (1962); I.
Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (1967); W. D. Davies, Introduction to Pharisaism
(1967); J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, 3 vols. (1971); W.
Fairweather, Background to the Gospels (1977).