The
Pharisees, Hasidim,
and the Early Jewish Church
During the time of
Christ, there were two divisions among the
Pharisees, called the
The
and dominated religious
affairs in
were religious leaders
admired by the common people. What was
the difference between
these Jewish groups and Jesus? What did
Jesus think of
them? What does the record of early
church history
tell us about their
relationship to the early Jewish Church of God?
William F. Dankenbring
What was Jesus' view of the world of
Pharisaism of His time? Many modern
religionists seem to think that Christ had nothing but scorn and withering
denunciation of all things pertaining to the Pharisees. But is this conclusion true? Many today say they will have nothing
whatever to do with the "Pharisees."
They seemingly conveniently overlook the fact that the apostle Paul was
himself a Pharisee, and boasted of this fact, and even said he was a Pharisee
some 25 years after his conversion (Acts 23:6), and again mentioned this fact
in his letter to the Philippians some 30 years after his conversion (see
Phil.3:4-6).
However, in a recent article in Jerusalem
Perspective, author Shmuel Safrai states categorically:
"Jesus was closer to the world of the
Pharisees than to that of the Sadducees or Essenes.
He
certainly did not share beliefs, religious outlook or social views with the
Sadducees,
and
he would have had little in common with
the isolationist views of the Essenes and
their
overt hostility toward anyone who did not accept their stringent views on
ritual
purity
. . . .
"Jesus'
education and understanding of Torah was in agreement with the Pharisees'
norms,
based
on both the Written and Oral Torah (Lk.2:41-47). He even taught his disciples and
followers: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in the
seat of Moses, so be careful to observe
everything
they tell you' (Matt.23:2-3). The
expression 'seat of Moses' is also found in mid-
rashic
literature and such seats have actually been found in ancient synagogues. Jesus,
however,
warned the people not to behave like the Pharisees, because 'they say, but do
not
do'
(Matt.23:3)" (Jerusalem Perspective, January/June 1994).
How close were Jesus' views to the basic, underlying
teachings of the Pharisees? Shmuel
Safrai points out that "Jesus contributed the required annual half-shekel
for the
Furthermore, we know that Jesus went
into the synagogues frequently, to worship, "as his custom was" (Luke
"Jesus, however, customarily went to
the synagogue on the Sabbath, to read from
the
Torah and the Prophets and afterwards to teach from them. All of this is in
keeping
with halachah and the practice described in tannaic literature.
"Jesus'
method of public instruction was also in keeping with Pharasaic practice. He
employed
educational techniques such as the parable that were common only in Phar-
isaic
teaching, and some of the basic themes in his teaching such as 'kingdom of
heaven'
and 'repentance,' are found only in the teachings of the sages. The prayers of
Jesus
and the motifs they contain are likewise similar to those of the sages" (ibid.).
However, as Shmuel Safrai points out, the world of
Pharisaism was not a monolithic world.
It was not a huge united rock-like structure, but was rent by cracks and
splits. "The many differences
between the house of Hillel and the house of Shammai pertained not only to
specific details in halachah, but also to the basic underlying principles of
halachah and religious and social thought." Shmuel adds, "There is much that needs
to be clarified regarding the place of Jesus and his teachings in relation to
this Pharisaic world."
Hasidism and the
Also preaching and teaching during
the time of Christ, and also coming from the region of
Although Jerusalem Pharisees tended
to look down their long noses at Galileans, and others away from Jerusalem, in
the period before (compare John 7:52) and immediately after the destruction of
the Second Temple in 70 A.D., the Galilee was noted as a place where Torah was
taught in public, and in many respects the moral and religious behavior of the
Galileans was on a higher level than that of the Judeans. Rabbinic literature refers to Galilean sages
teaching in their academies and in the open air of the
"Jesus, who was quite closer to the
Hasidim and perhaps even involved with some
of
them, does not therefore reflect Galilean boorishness or ignorance, but rather
the
dynamism
and ongoing creativity of Jewish life in
The Hasidim, like Jesus Christ and the apostles, referred
to God in a very intimate way as "father," or "abba." The intimate term "my father in
heaven" is found only once in a rabbinical text, and that is actually a
text belonging to Hasidic literature. In
Hasidic works however the phrase is found often -- no fewer than seventeen
times in "Seder Eliyahu." This
literature is unique in that it reflects what remains of Hasidic thought and
practice embedded in the greater corpus of rabbinic literature. Says Shmuel Safrai:
"It appears . . . that the Hasidim
and those associated with them, including Jesus, considered
their
relationship with God to be one of extreme familiarity . . . However, in
Hasidic circles
the
relationship of a Hasid to God was not just one of 'child of God,' but of a son
who can
brazenly
make requests of his father that someone else cannot make. The Hasid addressed God
as
'abba,' 'my father,' or 'my father in heaven,' and the LORD responded the way
he responded
to
'Hanina, my son.'"
Generally, it was the Hasidic element within the
Pharisaical movement to which the people looked when they desired prayer for
healing, or exorcism of evil spirits.
They had more faith in the prayers of a Galilean Hasid, than in a
The Hasidim, also like Jesus,
stressed the qualities and advantages spiritually of poverty. In Hasidic thought, poverty is the ideal
state that leads to all other positive and praiseworthy qualities of
character. Rabbinic sources, or the
Pharisees, on the other hand, seemed to value wealth and at least moderate
income, and as a consequence many during the time of Christ had become
corrupted by the accouterments of power and authority, and the
"pleasures" of life that wealth could bring. The tomb of Caiaphas, for example, which was
recently found in
What was the view of Christ
concerning poverty? In the sermon on the
mount, He declared: "Blessed are ye
that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh" (Luke
Considering the deceitfulness of
riches, Jesus then told His disciples:
"Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the
kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto
you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter into the
The Pharisees of the school of Hillel
the Elder already differed from the Hasidim in this respect, during the time of
Christ. According to Hasidic thought,
God tested
In another example, Hillel taught
that "The ignorant man cannot be a fearer of sin, and the am ha-eretz [poor
man or "farmer", literally, "man of the earth"] cannot be a
Hasid." He was reacting to the
teaching of the Hasid who emphasized that DEEDS are more important than
"study." Hillel disagreed,
obviously, and emphasized the importance of study of Torah. The story is told about Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Hananiah who had to admonish a priestly Hasid who was seemingly ignorant of a
number of laws of ritual purity. Says
Shmuel Safrai,
"Unlike the sages, however, the
Hasidim did not seek a balance between 'study' and
'deed,'
but maintained that the deed is to be preferred even at the expense of Torah
study. When they mentioned the saying in the Mishnah
that refers to the fruits of
certain
deeds that are enjoyed in the world to come, they delete the saying's
conclusion
which
states that 'the study of Torah is equal to them all.'"
There are a number of anti-Hasidic
stories found in rabbinic literature.
Even as the Pharisees looked down on Christ, and rejected Him, they also
tended to denigrate and hold in contempt the lowly Hasidim. However, the Hasidim in their views were much
closer to Christ than the Jerusalem Pharisees, or either the schools of Hillel
or Shammai.
Another contrast between the
Pharisees and the Hasidim was their view of "faith" and
"trust" in God. The Pharisees
took a more worldly, "practical" view of this matter. If a city were surrounded by an enemy king,
who demanded the life of a righteous man in the city, or else he would destroy
the city, the Pharisees reasoned that it is better for one man to die than an
entire city -- and would give him up.
Most rabbis today would probably say the same thing. It seems practical -- common sense.
However, the Hasidim believe God
answers prayer, and they would refuse the evil king's request, and pray to God
and trust in Him to defend and protect the city! "According to the teaching of the
Hasidim, the residents of the city would not have been harmed had they refused
to hand Ulla over to the authorities. Elijah
blamed Rabbi Yehoshua for not trusting in God's intervention."
Concludes Shmuel Safrai: "Basically, we have only veiled
references to Hasidic teachings in a literature that is close in spirit but not
identical to theirs. This is enough,
however, to show us how similar Jesus was to this first-century Galilean
group. For the most part, his deeds were
in keeping with the tenets of that group."
However, Jesus also had much more in
common with some of the Pharisees than with others. A careful investigation of the teachings of
the schools of Shammai and Hillel shows that in many respects, the
The
Teachings of Hillel
A new book, The Life and
Teachings of Hillel, by Yitzhak Buxbaum (1994, Jason Aronson, Inc.),
provides a fascinating insight and glimpse into the Judaism of the first
century, during the time Jesus Christ/Yeshua Ha Moshiach walked the highways
and bi-ways of ancient Judaea. Many
people, out of ignorance, have had a completely distorted and incorrect view of
the ancient Pharisees of Jesus' time.
This new book helps set the record straight.
Looking at the New Testament
Scriptures alone, one might assume -- and many people have -- that the
Pharisees were a contemptible lot, a bunch of religious low-lifes who in their
pride, corruption, and vanity, rejected the Messiah, and sought His
crucifixion. But this idea is far from
the truth -- it is shallow, distorted, and very one-sided. What many have not understood is that the New
Testament accounts were never intended to portray a comprehensive picture of
the Pharisaical movement in ancient
In this regard, the New Testament
does not always bitterly attack or condemn the Pharisees. Paul himself, even after his conversion,
boasted (in a godly way, for instructional purposes) of his background in
religious training as a Pharisee. When
brought before the council of the Sanhedrin, Paul addressed the group saying,
"Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am
called in question" (Acts 23:6). At
this point, interestingly, the religious leaders -- who were a mixture of
Pharisees and Sadducees -- became divided in their opinion of Paul, and a
strong dissension arose among them (verse 7).
"And there arose a great cry:
and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove,
saying, We find no evil in this man: but
if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God"
(Acts 23:9).
Paul himself was brought up and
taught as a Pharisee. He told the Jewish
people on another occasion, "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in
Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet
of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law [the oral
and written torah, no doubt, which the Pharisees taught] of the fathers, and
was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day" (Acts 22:3).
Gamaliel, Paul's teacher, was the
grandson of Hillel, and was one of the few Pharisee teachers accorded the title
"Raboni." He was undoubtedly
of the School of Hillel. We read in Acts
that when the Sadducees and Pharisee leaders in Jerusalem brought the apostles
before the council to punish them, seeking the death penalty on them for
spreading "heresy," it was Gamaliel who stood up in the counsel and
intervened on the behalf of the apostles.
"Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named
Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and
commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; and said unto them, Ye men
of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these
men."
After reciting several instances of
false messianic movements which arose, and then self-destructed, Gamaliel
cautioned the council, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men,
and let them alone: for if this counsel
or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even
to fight against God" (Acts 5:34-39).
Now, since Gamaliel was the leader
of the faction of the Pharisees known as the school of Hillel, being the
leading sage of his time and one of only seven to be given the title of
"Raboni" ("our teacher"), as opposed to the usual
"Rabbi" ("my teacher"), it is obvious that all the members
of the school of Hillel would have backed him up in his counsel and
advice. And since he was a man of great
reputation, he even persuaded the members of the school of Shammai, or many of
them, to support his position concerning the apostles. Obviously, the school of Hillel was
relatively tolerant toward religious Jews who differed in certain respects and
was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at least to co-exist with
them, believing that God in due time would show who was right and who was wrong.
The council agreed to the sage
advice of Gamaliel, and after warning the apostles not to teach in Jesus' name,
and whipping them, they let them go (vs.40-41).
Their lives were spared, largely on account of the moderation and wise
counsel of Gamaliel -- a leader of the School of Hillel. Obviously, it was the Sadducees and school of
Shammai, which were by far the most intolerant toward the apostles and the
early church (Acts 4:1-2, 6, 15-21). Why
were the Jewish religious leaders so strict and hostile toward the
apostles? The truth is that they felt
threatened -- they were worried that the whole nation of the Jews might
"convert," and leave them without a power base, and they would be
relegated to the slag heap of religious unimportance. They would lose their respect in the eyes of
the people, their authority, their control over the tithes and offerings of the
people. When they heard of the miracles
being performed by the apostles, "they doubted of themselves hereunto this
would grow" (Acts 5:24).
Gamaliel,
the Doctor of the Law
Says
Unger's Bible Dictionary about Gamaliel:
"The grandson of the great Hillel,
and himself a Pharisee and celebrated doctor of the law.
His
learning was so eminent and his character so revered that he is one of the
seven who,
among
Jewish doctors only, have been honored with the title of 'Rabban.' He was called
the
'Beauty of the Law,' and it is a saying of the Talmud that 'since Rabban
Gamaliel died
the
glory of the law has ceased'" ("Gamaliel," p.388).
Gamaliel's character was not trammeled by the narrow
bigotry that characterized the Pharisees who were of the School of Shammai, who
were in authority during the time of Christ and the apostles. He rose above such narrow prejudices and was
a man of candor and wisdom, and broad-mindedness. Ecclesiastical traditions of the early church
fathers states that he himself later became a Christian and was baptised by
Peter and Paul, together with his son Gamaliel, and Nicodemus. Gamaliel died about A.D. 50, twenty years
before the destruction of the Temple.
Says The New Westminster
Dictionary of the Bible of Gamaliel:
"Son of Simon and grandson of Hillel,
Gamaliel was a doctor of the law and a member
of
the Sanhedrin. Representing the liberal
wing of the Pharisees, the school of Hillel,
as
opposed to the school of Shammai, he intervened with a reasoned and persuasive
speech
at
the trial of the apostles (Acts 5:33-40).
Paul acknowledged him as his teacher (Acts 22:
3),
and he was held in such high honor that he was designated 'Rabban' ('our
teacher'), a
higher
title than 'Rabbi' ('my teacher')" (p.451).
Clearly, even the Biblical evidence
from the New Testament tells us that not all the Pharisees were narrow-minded
bigots and wickedly corrupt teachers as many people have assumed. Some of them, primarily of the school of
Hillel, were much more free-thinking, liberal, and peaceable in their
interactions with the apostles and the early Church.
Many of the Pharisees, particularly
those of the school of Hillel, had a "live and let live" attitude
toward the early Church. They did not
accept Jesus as the Messiah, but they considered the early Nazarenes --
followers of Jesus of Nazareth -- as fellow Jews, and perhaps even as a new
"school" or "sect" within the Pharisaical movement!
The School of Hillel
The school of Hillel, to which
Gamaliel -- and the apostle Paul -- belonged, believed in teaching the
"spirit of the Law" or Torah.
Hillel believed that God should be understood as being perfect from the
viewpoint of His mitigating the written Torah or law with the qualities of
forgiveness, mercy, compassion and love.
These were among the teachings of the Oral Torah which came down from Ezra
the scribe. Hillel's position was that
the Torah should serve mankind as a wife serves her husband -- it should help a
person to obtain eternal life in the world to come.
Hillel lived in the Jewish colony in
Babylon, where he was born and educated, before he moved to Judaea and became
famous there. In Babylon, the Jews were
of Chassidic and Kabbalistic belief and
position. Hillel is generally regarded
as the greatest of all Chassidic (Hasidic) teachers.
In reading the book The Life and
Teachings of Hillel, it becomes apparent that Jesus and the original
apostles taught either within or very similar to the beliefs and practices of
the Hasidic position and doctrine of the school of Hillel. The inflammatory rhetoric Jesus used to
castigate the Pharisees in Matthew 23 was directed at the disciples and leaders
of the dominant school of Shammai, who had corrupted and perverted the Oral Law
and the written Torah, by their many additions, restrictions, and traditions
which they had incorporated in their legalistic interpretation and teachings.
On many occasions, and statements
Jesus made in Matthew 23, He demolished the positions held by the opponents of
the school of Hillel -- the adherents of Shammai. Most modern Christians believe the worst
about the Pharisees because the gospels are written from the standpoint of
Jesus being virtually in the shoes of Hillel and having to rebuke the strict
and demanding Pharisees who followed the onerous and burdensome teachings of
Shammai.
Hillel himself was a Hasid. A single line preserved from the eulogy at
his funeral contains three vital characterizations of the man:
"O hasid! O humble man! -- disciple of Ezra" (Sanhedrin
11a).
While Hillel was a "hasid"
in the full sense of the meaning of the word -- his contemporary
adversary/opponent Shammai was a parush.
The "hasid" is distinguished by his love for people; the
"parush" was distinguishedby his separation from those he considers
sinful or irreligious, according to his strict standards.
Jesus encountered many such Shammai
"parush" in His travels -- Pharisees who rebuked Him for eating with
those whom they looked down upon, "tax collectors, prostitutes, and
sinners." Jesus said to them,
"But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the
markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, We have piped unto you,
and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not
lamented. For John came neither eating
nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil (demon). The Son of man came eating and drinking, and
they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and
sinners. But wisdom is justified of her
children" (Matt.11:16-19).
The School of Shammai
The
school of Shammai, however, believed in teaching and enjoining the "letter
of the law" or Torah upon the people.
Shammai taught that God could be best understood as being perfect from
the viewpoint of His strictness, judgment, and uncompromising righteousness --
doing everything to letter perfection.
This attitude was derived from the absolute strictness involved in
performing the Temple rituals by the Levites, and such strictness was carried
over into the everyday life of the Jewish people. To Shammai and his disciples, God's justice
and judgment were more important than His mercy, love or forgiveness.
The superstrict school of Shammai
appears dominant in the time of Christ, judging from the rebukes Jesus gave to
the Pharisees of His time, calling them a "generation of vipers"
(Matt.23:33). These Pharisees noticed
that Jesus "sat at meat in the house," and "behold, many
publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples"
(Matt.9:10. They objected to Jesus
eating with such people, and asked His disciples, "Why eateth your Master
with publicans and sinners?" Jesus
heard them, and replied, "They that be whole need not a physician, but
they that are sick. But go ye and learn
what that meaneth, I will have MERCY, and not sacrifice; for I am not come to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt.9:11-13).
These same Pharisees condemned the
healing of the sick on the Sabbath day, and the disciples of Christ plucking a
few ears of wheat in the field on the Sabbath and eating them. Jesus rebuked their strict interpretation of
the law, saying, "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have
mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless"
(Matt.12:7).
These self-righteous Pharisees did
not appreciate His rebuke or correction.
They repudiated it, and His message, "and held a council against
him, how they might destroy him" (Matt.12:14).
These members of the school of
Shammai, when Jesus performed miracles of healing, denied it was by the power
of God, and ascribed the healings to the power of Satan (Matt.12:24). When Jesus healed a man born blind from
birth, on the Sabbath day, some of the Pharisees who were present --
undoubtedly mostly those of the school of Shammai -- said, "This man is
not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day" (John 9:16). Other Pharisees, probably of the school of
Hillel, argued, saying, "How can a man that is a sinner do such
miracles? And there was a division
among them," says the Gospel of John (John 9:16).
The school of Hillel in many
instances taught very similar to the teachings of Christ. But Shammai was not a beloved figure among
the people. His life did not serve as an
example followed or honored by the people.
Many popular stories about Hillel arose and were recorded in the Talmud;
but those about Shammai were but a shadow by comparison. This does not mean that Jesus endorsed the
"school of Hillel," however.
It merely points out that of the two major schools among the Pharisees,
that the school of Hillel was closer in many respects to the truth than
the school of Shammai!
"An Unworthy Generation"
According to the Talmud, Shammai's
temporary success in forcing his views through on a number of issues, and thus
humiliating Hillel, was a day of sorrow and lamentation in Israel -- "that
day was as grievous for Israel as the day on which they made the Golden
Calf."
According to modern Rabbinic
scholars, that generation of Pharisees -- because of the power of the school of
Shammai, undoubtedly -- was "an unworthy generation."
Interestingly, Jesus Christ Himself
said much the same thing. Jesus
declared: "An evil and an
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matt.12:39). Speaking of cities where He had done mighty
miracles, Jesus said, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in
the day of judgment than for thee" (Matt.11:21-24). Of course, the wickedness of the Sadducees,
and Herod the king and his coterie of sycophants and boot-lickers also made
that generation a truly unworthy and wicked one.
A certain gentile once came to Hillel
and said, "I'm ready to become a Jew, but only if you can teach me the
whole Torah while I stand on one foot."
Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, don't do to your fellow
man; that is the whole Torah, and the rest . . . is just commentary. Go then and learn it" (Shabbat 31a; p.95
of The Life and Teachings of Hillel).
Although he put it negatively, this
is nothing less than a form of the Golden Rule that Jesus Christ taught. Jesus declared, to the crowds who came to
hear Him: "And as ye would that men
should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6:31).
Matthew records His words: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets"
(Matt.7:12).
It is very apparent that there is a
direct connection, historically, between the Hebrew prophets, Ezra and his
teachings, and Hillel, and later Gamaliel, Jesus Christ, the apostles, and the
apostle Paul, and the early Church of God.
The
Seven Kinds of Pharisees
According to Jewish tradition and
history, there were theologically seven kinds of "Pharisees." Says Angus in his Bible Dictionary:
"The
Pharisees, according to the Talmud, were of seven kinds: (1) The Shechemite
Pharisee,
who simply keeps the law
for what he can profit thereby, as Shechem
submitted
to circumcision to obtain Dinah (Gen.34:19).
(2) The Tumbling Pharisee,
who to appear humble always hangs down his
head. (3) The Bleeding Pharisee, who
in
order not to see a woman walks with his eyes closed, and thus often meets with
wounds. (4) The Mortar Pharisee, who wears a
mortar-shaped cap to cover his eyes that
he
may 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 has done one thing, asks, 'What is my
duty
now? and I will do it?' (comp. Mark 10:17-22). (6) The
Pharisee from fear, who
keeps
the law because he is afraid of future judgment. (7) The
Pharisee from love, who
obeys
the Lord because he loves him with all his heart" (p.855).
Over the period of time when
Pharisaism began, about 134 B.C., till around 135 A.D., the quality of its adherents diminished. As is true of all human-involved endeavors,
as time went on, various types of individuals entered the group, each with his
own aims and ambitions. Says The New
Westminster Dictionary of the Bible:
"At first, when one incurred great
danger in joining the party, the Pharisees were men of
strong
religious character; they were the best people in the nation. Subsequently Pharisaism
became
an inherited belief, the profession of it was popular, and men of character
very inferior
to
that of the original members joined its ranks.
With the lapse of time also the essentially
vicious
element in the system developed and laid the Pharisees, as commonly represented
by
the
members of the party, open to scathing rebuke.
John the Baptist called them and the
Sadducees
a generation of vipers; and it is well known how severely our Lord denounced
them
for
their self-righteousness, their hypocrisy, their inattention to the weightier
matters of the
law,
while being very particular as to minute points, with other faults (Matt.5:20;
16:6, 11-12;
23:1-39). They became a cunning body of men (Jos. Antiq.
xvii. 2, 4). They took a prominent
part
in plotting the death of Christ (Mark 3:6; John 11:47-57). Yet they always numbered in
their
ranks MEN OF PERFECT SINCERITY AND THE HIGHEST CHARACTER" (p.742,
article
"Pharisees").
Who Killed Christ?
It was a Sadducean high priest,
Caiaphas, who abused his authority to condemn Jesus as a "heretic"
and who delivered Him to Pilate for execution (Matt.26:57-68). But it was "the chief priests (most of
whom were Sadducees), and elders (many of them Pharisees, primarily of the
school of Shammai), and all the council" of the Sanhedrin who "sought
false witness against Jesus to put him to death" (Matt.26:59).
It would appear at this time that
the members of the school of Hillel, at least to some degree, were influenced
by these proceedings and went along with them.
There is no hint in the gospels of any division among the Pharisees as
to the proceedings against Christ. Of
course, it is probable that any suspected "sympathizers" of Christ
would have been excluded and did not know about the plot to apprehend Christ
and have Him killed. This would have
included such Pharisees as Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathaea (John 3:1-3;
7:48-53; 19:19:38-42), who were secretly disciples of Christ but did not let it
be known "for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38). .
History of the Early Jewish Church
The New Testament Church of God,
which began on Pentecost, 30 A.D., with the Holy Spirit being poured out upon
the believers in Jesus Christ/Yeshua Notzri (Yeshua the Nazarene"),
grew greatly during its seminal year.
That Pentecost alone some 3000 souls were added to the Church (Acts
3:41-42). The number of believers
shortly grew to five thousand (Acts 4:4).
After the healing of the man lame
from birth at the Temple, the religious leaders of the Jews were worried where
they new "sect" was headed and found its staggering growth
troubling. But other than threaten and
intimidate, there was little they could do, since the people were favorable
toward them. "And by the hands of
the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they
were all with one accord within Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join
himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the
Lord, multitudes both of men and women)" (Acts 5:12-14).
Daily, in the Temple, and in every
house, the apostles "ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ"
(Acts 5:42).
However,
shortly after this beginning, Stephen, a newly appointed deacon in the church
and a man "full of faith and of power" (Acts 6:8), had a run in with
a more "liberal" synagogue of the Jews -- what today we might call a
"reformed" Jewish synagogue.
This was a synagogue called "the synagogue of the Libertines
[implying they were more "liberated" from the hard and fast rules and
traditions of the elders -- more like a "reformed" or
"progressive" synagogue today], and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians [of
Egypt], and of them of Cilicia and of Asia" (Acts 7:9-10). They began disputing with Stephen, but could
not answer his wisdom, and so hired false testimony against him, accusing him
of seeking to destroy the Temple and changing the customs or rites given by
Moses (verses 11-14).
Stephen was brought before the
Sanhedrin, who inquired if these things were so. His testimony cut them to the quick, and
showing their rebelliousness, "they gnashed upon him with their
teeth" (v.54), and when he looked into heaven and said he saw the glory of
God and Jesus as His right hand, they had had enough, and in a violent rage,
they "cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon
him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him" (Acts
7:57-58).
After this, there was "a great
persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1). "Devout men" buried Stephen, making
great lamentation over him (Acts 8:2).
This may well have included many members of the school of Hillel who
abhorred the murderous frenzy of the mob action which had led to his needless
death and bloody murder. "Devout
men" would mean the Hasidim -- those who were Hasids, like Hillel, and
Gamaliel -- as well as the leaders of the Church. Stephen himself must have been a highly respected and well known doer of good
deeds and righteousness (Acts 6:3-5, 8).
This particular persecution seems to
have ended when Paul himself, then known as Saul of Tarsus, who was the chief
"inquisitor" and who "breathed out threatenings and slaughter
against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1), was himself converted and
became a chief exponent of the fledgling faith (Acts 9:1-18). Now, however, much of the Jewish anger of the
high priests and orthodox rabbis, the Pharisees, was focused on Saul himself,
and they plotted to slay him (Acts 9:23-24, 28-30). After this, "Then had the churches
rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and
walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, were
multiplied" (Acts 9:31). This was
about 35 A.D. -- five years after the death of the Messiah.
During the ensuing years, although
persecution flared up from time to time and from place to place, there seems to
have been achieved a sort of "live and let live" accommodation
between the Pharisees and Christian leaders.
Intermittent Persecutions
Although there was no meeting of
minds doctrinally, concerning the Messiahship of Jesus, between the remaining
Pharisees of either the school of Hillel or Shammai, and the early Nazarenes,
the church was free to preach the gospel and did so. However, as the apostle Paul, sought to
preach Christ in the synagogues throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and Europe, he
encountered sporadic persecution and opposition. Nevertheless, he was allowed, as a Jewish
Rabbi who had been taught at the feet of Gamaliel, and as a Pharisee coming from Jerusalem, to
preach in the Jewish synagogues (Acts 13:14-15, 42; 17:1-5). Many believed and were converted, but many
others did not.
Even many of the sect of the Pharisees believed, and became members of the church (Acts 15;1-6). This brought about the need to address the question of whether a Gentile convert would have to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses to be saved -- that is, whether Gentiles had to become Jews, as well as followers of Christ. The council in Acts 15 addressed this volatile issue, and decided that this was not necess