Jesus and the Pharisees and what does it mean ?

So first let us ask who were the Pharisees? The word comes from the Hebrew word P’rushim פְּרוּשִׁים meaning separated ones or that is pious ones more broadly.Most likely coming from the word parash which can mean to apportion in some cases.They were the most prominent group in Jewish thought in second Temple times and after the groups like the Sadducees faded away (maybe became the Kara’ites) the Pharisees would define the direction of Rabbinical thought.

There were two main sub groups of the P’rushim ,The House of Hillel who were considered the good Pharisees and The House of Shamai who were the people that Jesus conflicted the most with and were sort of the bad Pharisees.So why did Jesus and Beit (house) Shammai have so many problems.

Here below is Mark chapter 7

7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus ² and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. ³ (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. ⁴ When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

⁵ So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

⁶ He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
⁷ They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.

⁸ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

⁹ And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! ¹⁰ For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother, and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. ¹¹ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— ¹² then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. ¹³ Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Is this true that Beit Shammai forgot God’s law in favor of their own? So let us look at the Talmud a bit in Tractate Sanhedrin 4a-2.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רוֹעֵץ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

§ The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages is explained as an example of the more general question of whether the written consonantal text or the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. As Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosei says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, they all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and that the halakha is therefore decided based on the meaning of the word as pronounced, and not on possible alternative readings of the written text.

Also Sanhedrin 4a-7

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. וּבְחַטָּאת – שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר

With regard to Beit Shammai, the proof that they also hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative is as we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 36b): Beit Shammai say: With regard to all offerings whose blood must be presented on the external altar, once the blood has been presented with one presentation the offering has effected atonement, even if more presentations are ideally required, as it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that even with regard to a burnt-offering, which requires multiple presentations of the blood, a single presentation is sufficient to render the offering valid after the fact. But with regard to a sin-offering, it is valid only if there were at least two presentations. And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin-offering that one presented with one presentation, it has effected atonement after the fact.

And so for a few verses Beit Shammai elaborates on the authority of the vocalization of the Torah.So now is Beit Hillel in countering in 4a-9

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: קַרְנוֹת, קַרְנַת, קַרְנַת – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע. שָׁלֹשׁ לְמִצְוָה, וְאַחַת לְעַכֵּב.

And Beit Hillel say: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text. The word “horns” is written once plene, with a vav, which means that it must be read in the plural; and the other two times the words “horns” and “horns” are written deficient, without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular. Therefore, there are four references to horns here. Three of these presentations are written to indicate that they are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, but the offering is valid even absent their presentation. And the remaining one, i.e., the fourth presentation, is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not presented against at least one horn of the altar. Evidently, Beit Shammai hold the vocalization is authoritative, whereas Beit Hillel hold the consonantal text is authoritative.

It appears here that Beit Shammai holds that the oral tradition of vocalization is authoritative and Beit Hillel sides with consonantal written text.So Beit Shammai’s own opinions do seem to hold true that the Pharisees or at least Beit Shammai favor their tradition over strict observance of the written text.And also in fairness to the House of Shammai there are times when the (there are not vowels in the Hebrew Alpha-Bet or Alef Beit) so a choice must be made on interpretation because some words have the same lettering but differing meanings.

Here is Sanhedrin 4b-14

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם פְּלִיגִי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּשָׁנֵי קְרָא מִמָּסוֹרֶת. אֲבָל הַאי ״חֵלֶב״ וַ״חֲלֵב״ דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

Rather, the explanation that everyone holds that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative must be rejected, and it must be explained that the Sages actually do disagree whether it is the vocalization of the Torah or the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written that is authoritative. And in order to explain the unresolved problem with regard to the baraita about the prohibition of cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk, the explanation is that this statement, that they disagree as to whether the vocalization or the tradition is authoritative, applies where the vocalization of the word differs from the tradition of the manner in which the word is written. But in this case the words milk [ḥalev] and fat [ḥelev] are written in an identical manner, as there is no difference in the writing at all, only in the way they are vocalized. Therefore, all agree that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

So here is an interesting point in that one reading of the Torah here in Exodus 23:19

יט רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּֽחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ

The best of the first fruits of your land you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God,do not cook a young male goat in the milk of it’s mother.

This word here חלב if vocalized as chalav or chalev in Biblical times means milk and vocalized cheilev means fat or the choicest portion.In the times of Jesus there were no nikud (nikud means dot or dots) or vowel points in the Bible and that did not happen until about the 7th or 8th centuries CE. So the correct vowel pronunciation was handed down in the oral traditions from generation to generation in the oral Torah that later became the Mishnah which became the basis of the Talmud.

So Beit Shammai has an important and valid point and very often if you read the Talmud their opinions are smarter and more thought out.However here is where Jesus has a point in that Beit Shammai prioritized arguments over legal rulings and making them more profound.Whereas Beit Hillel although wrong on this point showed they loved God more by prioritizing the written text of the Bible itself.Also that Jesus said not that the oral traditions were wrong,quite to the contrary but that the motive of Beit Shammai in being so adherent to the oral custom was because it was their own not for love of God.

Rabbi Hillel was famous for saying “That which is hateful to you do not unto your neighbor ,that is the whole Torah all the rest is commentary”

So Beit Hillel prioritized love of God and your fellow man over the finer points in legal rulings. Not to say those legal rulings were not wise but that Beit Shammai cared more for that wisdom than love of God.

Here is an interaction between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai from the Mishna Shabat 17b

Beit Shammai say: One may spread traps for an animal and birds and fish only if there is sufficient time remaining in the day for them to be trapped in them while it is still day, and Beit Hillel permit doing so even if there is not sufficient time remaining in the day.

So you see again that Beit Hillel is more relaxed on rules and Shammai is hyper strict on halakhic (that is legal) interpretation.Meaning that while Beit Hillel placed greater emphasis on the spirit of the law ,Shammai was obsessed with every detail inn legal rulings which became more important than God himself.Beit Shammai taught that only the most worthy and learned students should ever be allowed to study Torah.Whereas Beit Hillel said everyone should be allowed to study Torah in hopes it would bring them to repentance.Also I want to point out that by no means am I saying that Beit Hillel in Rabbinical times were Christian (although some may have become followers of Jesus in Jesus’s time) but the later Beit Hillel was not Christian. I am using the contrast to make the point that the New Testament was right by the Pharisees own admissions in later times about what Jesus accused them of. I would imagine that Jesus met Rabbi Hillel because Jesus would have been a teenager when Hillel died so it is very possible they met and spoke at some point and that Hillel may very well have recognized the Messiah before he died in 10 CE.

Here is Matthew 23

23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ² “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. ³ So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. ⁴ They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

⁵ “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries (tefillin) wide and the tassels (tzitzit) on their garments long; ⁶ they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; ⁷ they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

Here in Matthew 23 it is clear that Jesus is talking about self righteousness and making a public display thereof.

Here again is Matthew 12

²² Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. ²³ All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

²⁵ Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. ²⁶ If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? ²⁷ And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

²⁹ “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

³⁰ “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. ³¹ And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

My personal take this and the so called unforgivable sin in which is obviously directed at the Pharisees.I personally do not believe the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is directed at any modern person.I do think Jesus was using sarcasm to show the Pharisees that if they are so hard hearted that they cannot recognize their own Messiah then maybe they are beyond help.

I hope you enjoyed this exploration of the subject of the Pharisees in the Gospels.And not just to learn more about them but also show the accuracy of the New Testament by how later Rabbinical writings show why the Gospels are accurate.This is important because so many skeptics argue that there not a lot outside the New Testament to validate it but this is clearly not true.

Thank you all and God Bless !