Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots

During the centuries either side of Jesus, Judaism formed several distinct factions. The most famous of these are Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots. Similar to modern day denominations, there are distinctions and areas of overlap (Wood et al., 1996, p. 914). Many Jews did not identify with any group (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35). The distinctions between the groups are seen in four domains: human geography, political involvement, characteristic theology and sphere of influence.

While the Sadducees were found in Jerusalem maintaining the temple cult the Pharisees lived in villages and towns (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34). The Essenes withdraw into isolated monastic communities (Shelley, 1995, p. 6), in many cities (Bealle, 2000, p. 2), the largest being in Qumran (Wood et al., 1996, p. 340). The Zealots formed late in the first century (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9) as a more turbulent group with various leaders, divisions and locations (Wood et al., 1996, p. 1263).

The Pharisees were committed to understanding Israel’s Law (Westerholm, 1992, p. 3) and had a general ambivalence towards Greco-Roman Society (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34). The centre of the Sadducees’ world was the Temple in a Roman city which, combined with generations of prestige and privilege associated with the priesthood and control of the Sanhedrin, meant that life involved the urban elite and associated politics (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). The Essenes and Zealots took opposite approaches. The Essenes were separatists and avoided the political stage while the Zealots were ‘bent on armed resistance’ (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). The latter opposed the impurity of Roman interference (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9; Wood et al., 1996, p. 1263) and fought a class war of Jewish aristocracy (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9).

The Pharisees observed and taught strict observance to the Law (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). They taught immortality of the soul, resurrection of the righteous, and particular attention to ritual purity and tithing (Westerholm, 1992, pp. 1,3). They are criticized in the New Testament for holding ancestral traditions as binding (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34; Westerholm, 1992, p. 1). The Sadducees differed in understanding of purity laws, human freedom over fate, and did not believe in the immorality of the soul (Wood et al., 1996, pp. 1044-1045; Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 33; Porton, 2000, p. 1). The Essenes believed in predestination (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915), apocalyptic eschatology (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35), separation from Gentiles and Gentile influence (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35), common property, clothing and food, and celibacy (Bealle, 2000, p. 2).

Despite lacking economic or professional influence (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34) the Pharisees were popular and powerful (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915), much more so than the Sadducees (Porton, 2000, p. 1) . They were the core of the rabbinic movement, supplanting the Priests (Mason, 2000, p. 1) because they interpreted the Torah (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915). The Sadducees controlled the temple but only had a small support base of the wealthy (Porton, 2000, p. 1). The Zealots’ guerrilla tactics had influence most notable for preventing ‘the nobilities plan to negotiate a settlement with the Romans’ (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 10).

[removed - comment on modern day pharisees]

Epilogue

[removed subjective Information]

You may or may not believe it, but below is a true story.

In 2003 I attended [removed identifying information]

One evening the Minister spoke on Luke 18 – The Pharisee and The Tax Collector.

‘The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.’ (Luke 18:11)

From memory he was well prepared and spoke well. However, what will always stand out was how he concluded.

‘We thank you God that we are not like this Pharisee.’

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. J., Green, J. B., & Thompson, M. M. (2001). Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Basser, H. W. (2000). Priests and Priesthood, Jewish. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Bealle, T. (2000). Essenes. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervaristy Press.

Heard, W. J., & Evans, C. A. (2000). Revolutionary Movements, Jewish. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Mason, S. (2000). Pharisees. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Porton, G. G. (2000). Sadducees. In Dictionary of the New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Shelley, B. L. (1995). Churst History in Plain Language. (U. 2nd, Ed.) Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Westerholm, S. (1992). Pharisees. In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Intervarsity Press.

Wood, D. R., Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R., Packer, J. I., & Wiseman, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

How do you read the Genesis Creation Account?

There are a number of different ways of reading the Genesis creation account (e.g. historical, mythological, theological, polemical etc.). Briefly survey at least three of these. Which approach do you favour and why?

The Genesis creation account (GCA) is one of the most familiar passages of scripture for both Christians and the general populace. The character of God, the nature of the world, the meaning of human existence, and the fall of humanity are themes it expounds (Drane, 1987, p. 240). Regardless of the attention given it, its interpretation has been broad, contentious and held close to heart. ‘Here the stakes are high and tempers rise: even mild-mannered scholars have been known to damn opposing interpreters of these chapters angrily’ (Wenham, 2003, p. 9). This emotion stirs from the assumption that how you interpret these passages shapes your world view and how you interpret the remainder of scripture.

The central issue to GCA is that of genre (Wenham, 2003, p. 9). Genre as a grouping of similar literary works provides a framework of interpretive presuppositions on how a text should be read. Just as the meaning of a comic, an instruction manual or a play cannot be expounded if their different genres are confused so it is with biblical texts of such as narrative, poetry, or apocalyptic. ‘Genre functions as a valuable link between the text and the readers’ (Osborne, 2006, p. 182) . The GCA is often thought of as: myth, polemic, science/history, or theology (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 74). Which category you assign the GCA shapes your interpretation (Mckeown, 2008, p. 307).

Approaching the text as mythology contains several problems, the first being the lack of scholarly consensus on a definition (Hamilton, 1995, p. 57). Definitions of mythology include stories of Gods, parts of rituals, truth not explained by science, analogy, and embellished truths (such as King Arthur) (Drane, 1987, p. 244; Sarna, 1966, p. 6; Wenham, 2003, p. 13). Commonly myth is held to be fantastic and fictitious – similar to children stories. It is with this definition that the New Testament warns Christians to avoid mythology (Hamilton, 1995, p. 56, 1 Timothy 4:7, 2 Timothy 4:4, 2 Peter 1:16).

Varying definitions may explain varying opinions of Genesis as mythology (Hamilton, 1995, p. 58). The GCA can be understood as the actions of deity in primeval history to establish the ‘contemporary world order’ (Hamilton, 1995, p. 58). This allows a non-scientific approach that can still teach of the present day. In contrast it would be fallacy to claim that the GCA is fanciful (in league with Goldilocks & the Three Bears) (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 74) thus robbing it of its value.

A polemic approach to reading the text was developed after George Smith noticed the parallel between the biblical GCA and the Gilgamesh Epic (Wenham, 2003, pp. 9-10). The text was formed in the historical context of the Ancient Near East (Walton, 2009, p. 13). The polemic approach states that the similarities between the biblical account and those of other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories (including the Babylonian Creaton myth the Enuma Elish) is more than co-incidence and in fact the biblical account was written to override and argue against the other stories.

This approach gains momentum as when the accounts are most similar the GCA ‘deliberately undermines the assumptions of the Babylonian story’ (Drane, 1987, p. 248). A pertinent difference is God’s relationship with man. In the Enuma Elish man is an afterthought, almost incidental (Sarna, 1966, p. 15; Wenham, 2003, p. 16), whereas in the biblical account people are central to God’s purpose (Drane, 1987, p. 249). However, some are uncomfortable with this approach as it is a response to other material rather than a totally original revelation from God predating all else (Drane, 1987, p. 247).

Holding the text as scientific and historical appeals to the desire to hold scripture in high esteem by accepting its teachings a literal (Proverbs 1:7, John 6:60). This approach is popular amongst modern day creationists (Mckeown, 2008, pp. 295, 301). However, the value of the text (2 Timothy 3:16-17) does not require it to be a scientific account. Additionally, this view is destined to conflict with science (Drane, 1987, p. 242). Calvin was clear that Genesis was never intended to be a book of science (Drane, 1987, p. 242). Sarna states that, ‘it is naive and futile to exercise to attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science’ (Sarna, 1966, p. 3).

Genesis was written by people with a pre-scientific worldview to describe an event at which initially no human was present (Sarna, 1966, pp. 2-3; Hamilton, 1995, p. 56). Although it integrates secular knowledge and theology (Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, & Petersen, 2005, p. 30) it gives no indication that it seeks to be a scientific text. The text is more concerned with God and how God relates to man than the relationship of natural forces (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 74; Sarna, 1966, p. 9). The moon appears as the ‘lesser light’ (Genesis 1:16) but does not in fact produce light (Mckeown, 2008, p. 295; Hamilton, 1995, p. 54). By genealogy Babel was 200 years prior to Abraham – not long enough for the spread and division of ethnic groups (Mckeown, 2008, p. 297). The risk of this literalistic approach is that attention is focused on details (time and place) with a loss of focus on the enduring theological message of the text (Sarna, 1966, p. 3).

After reflection of the GCA I believe it is first and foremost theological and kerygmatic – its message is about God (Drane, 1987, p. 242). It is fitting that the first chapters establish a biblical worldview and declare divine truths (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 78). Genesis shows God as creator, God as ordered, God as loving, creation as good, God’s covenant with man and man’s rejection of God. The GCA is ‘an artistic, literary representation of creation intended to fortify God’s covenant with creation’ (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 78).

The text’s polemic is used to teach theological truths. ‘Genesis retells familiar oriental stories about the origins of the world, [and] dramatically transforms them theologically’ (Wenham, 2003, p. 16). For example; theogomy (creation of god) and comsogomy (creation of the universe) are concepts which distinguish the GCA theologically. Unique to the GCA is that God predates creation (Genesis 1:1). If God were part of creation, there must be forces greater or outside God. This is the basis of pagan ritual appealing to these forces in order to control or influence god. The GCA proclaims ‘loudly and unambiguously, the absolute subordination of all creation to the supreme Creator.... it asserts unequivocally that the basic truth of all history is that the world is under the undivided and inescapable sovereignty of God’ (Sarna, 1966, p. 9).

Bibliography

Birch, B. C., Brueggemann, W., Fretheim, T. E., & Petersen, D. L. (2005). A Theological Introduction To the Old Testament (2nd Edition ed.). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Drane, J. (1987). Thinking about the World. In Introducing the Old Testament (pp. 240-49). Oxford: Lion.

Hamilton, V. (1995). Problems in Interpretation. In Genesis 1-11 (pp. 53-59). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Mckeown, J. (2008). Genesis and Theology Today. In Genesis (pp. 294-317). Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing.

Osborne, G. R. (2006). The Hermeneutical Spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation (2nd ed.). Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

Sarna, N. (1966). Creation. In Understanding Genesis (pp. 1-23). New York: Schocken Books.

Waltke, R., & Fredriucs, C. (2001). In Genesis: A Commentary (pp. 74-78). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Walton, J. (2009). Introduction. In The Lost World of Genesis One (pp. 9-15). Downers Grove: Intervasity Press.

Wenham, G. (2003). Genesis 1-11. In Exploring the Old Testament (Vol. Vol. 1: The Pentateuch, pp. 9-19). London: SPCK.

The value of the Old Testament (OT)

“Christians do not need the Old Testament. All they need is Jesus and the New Testament.” Do you agree or disagree? Justify your position. If you disagree, why do Christians need the Old Testament?

The value of the Old Testament (OT) for Christians has been debated since the second century when Marcion thought of it as ‘the unnecessary and embarrassing sibling to the New’ (Brunner, 1964, p. 243). Knowledge of the OT is fading amongst modern Christians who struggle when it does not make sense whilst what does make sense offends (Yancey, 1999, p. 18). Despite the inherent difficulties, the OT has been part of the canon since Christ, contains thousands of years of God interacting with his people, provides historical, cultural and religious context to the NT, and ultimately points us to Jesus.

The OT was the bible of the Early Church (Kaiser, 2003, p. 26) from which they received spiritual nourishment (Greidanus, 1999, p. 15). Jesus claimed, ‘I have not come to abolish [the Law and the Prophets] but to fulfil them’ (Matthew 5:17b) and ‘if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?’ (John 5:46). Matthew’s opening genealogy links his writings with OT authority. Stephen began his testimony with Abraham (Acts 7) (Achtemeir, 1962, p. 14). The author to the Hebrews acknowledged past revelation (Hebrews 1:1). Paul showed Jesus fulfilled the OT (Romans 15:3) and its stories were examples for our edification (1 Corinthians 10:11, James 2:25). In fact, there is no evidence in the NT that its authors went outside the OT to understand the Messiah (Kaiser, 2003, p. 24). Paul instructs Timothy that ‘all scripture’ is useful for (1) teaching, (2) rebuking, (3) correcting, (4) training us in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) (Kaiser, 2003, p. 17) and (5) to be read publically (1 Timothy 1:43). ‘Scripture’[1] in the NT usually refers to the OT (Kaiser, 2003, p. 24). Thus, to place confidence in the NT is to place confidence in those who had confidence in the OT.

The early church maintained the OT canon (Brunner, 1964, p. 243). As part of the canon, the ‘standard for faith and life’ (Greidanus, 1999, p. 25), it possessed divine authority (Kaiser, 2003, p. 16). Its authority was later re-enforced in church doctrine; Article VII of the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England (1563) (Kaiser, 1991, p. 16). Although the OT has had its opponents - most famously Marcion (ca. 85-160), Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Harnack (1851-1930) and Bultman (1884-1976) (Greidanus, 1999, pp. 18, 20, 21) - its position in the canon remains.

The OT contains thousands of years of God progressively revealing his person by special historical revelation and self-disclosure (Brunner, 1964, p. 253). His attributes are discovered in observing his interaction with his people, and the moral laws teach the unique holiness of God and value of relationship and human life (Kaiser, 2003, p. 23). Yancey puts it beautifully;

‘Without the OT we will always have an impoverished view of God. God is not a philosophical construct but a person who acts in history... from Genesis 1 onward, God has wanted himself to be known and the OT is our most complete revelation of what God is like’ (Yancey, 1999, p. 27)

The best understanding of the NT requires understanding of the OT (Kaiser, 2003, pp. 26-27). Texts such as Jude, Hebrews and Revelation require background knowledge for their interpretation (Yancey, 1999, p. 23). The use of language, parables, and symbols would lack their impact without conscious understanding of the peoples’ heritage (Greidanus, 1999, p. 30). Concepts including the church, Passover, covenant, the Kingdom of God, salvation, priests, atonement, law, faith, hope, Christ, Son of Man, Lamb of God, and good shepherd would be robbed of value without the OT (Greidanus, 1999, p. 29; Yancey, 1999, p. 23).

The OT also aids our discernment of false understanding of the NT. Marcion’s rejection of the OT creation stories allow freedom for him to claim there was a lesser creator God (Greidanus, 1999, p. 31). The Mormon claim of a second appearance of Jesus is not mentioned in the OT. The NT does not provide a worldview but assumes that taught in the OT (Greidanus, 1999, p. 28) and also points to subtle worldview changes as the church moved from a Hebrew to Hellenistic outlook (Greidanus, 1999, p. 31).

The NT is not intended to stand alone and in many cases presupposes knowledge of the OT. Theological issues of Creation and the Fall are limited in the NT. Divine judgement is clearly seen in the OT (Brunner, 1964, p. 257). Ethical issues of marriage and sexuality are enriched by the examples of David and Solomon. Practical issues of suffering are endured with examples of Joseph (Genesis 30-45) and knowledge of God’s faithfulness (Yancey, 1999, p. 30). The OT contains a realistic portrayal of life where we can observe success and failure for our wisdom (Kaiser, 2003, p. 24).

Prediction of the Messiah – the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus – was clearly anticipated in the OT. God’s ultimate plan for his people and redemption begins in the OT. From the promise Eve’s offspring (Genesis 3:15), to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3), the exodus from Egypt (Exodus 1-11), return of the exiles culminating with Jesus Christ we see progressive revelation of God’s redemptive plan. There are over 455 OT references to the Messiah or Messianic times (Kaiser, 2003, p. 20). It is more ‘natural, logical and biblical to let God’s revelation unfold from prophecy to fulfilment’ (Kaiser, 2003, p. 26). Faith and relationship with Jesus is paramount in the NT and without the OT we do not know fully who Jesus Christ is (Achtemeir, 1962, p. 12).

A Gentile Christian approaching the OT can be likened to the first family function with the in-laws. You find yourself married into something that may be unfamiliar, and uncomfortable. However, you quickly realise that life existed before and outside of yourself. There are history, relationships, events, and values that have shaped your spouse, and the relationship you have with her. Without the OT our view of God would be impoverished (Yancey, 1999, p. 27), lacking three quarters of the history of God with his people (Kaiser, 2003, p. 27; Yancey, 1999, p. 27), and deficient regards our understanding of the Messiah/Christ (Achtemeir, 1962, p. 12). The natural path to ‘genuine understanding of the New Testament is by way of the Old’ (Brunner, 1964, p. 249).

Bibliography

Achtemeir. (1962). Why Bother with the Old Testament? In The OT Roots of Our Faith (pp. 11-16). New York: Abingdon.

Brunner, E. (1964). The Significance of the Old Testament for our Faith. In B. Anderson (Ed.), The Old Testament and Christian Faith (pp. 243-64). London, London: SCM.

Greidanus, S. (1999). The necessity of Preaching from the Old Testament. In Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (pp. 15-32). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Kaiser. (1991). The Old Testament as the Christian Problem. In Toward rediscovering the Old Testament (pp. 13-32). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Kaiser. (2003). The Value of the Old Testament for Today. In Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament (pp. 15-28). Grand Rapids: Baucer.

Yancey, P. (1999). Is the Old Testament worth the effort? In The Bible Jesus read (pp. 17-42). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

---

[1] The meaning of ‘Scripture’ in this context is debated and may be taken as individual passages, the whole OT, or OT plus NT (Kaiser, The Old Testament as the Christian Problem, 1991, p. 27).