II. Theology of the Pharisees and the Teaching of Jesus.— Two views formerly held respecting the relation" of Jesus and His teachings to the Pharisaic Judaism of His time may now be regarded as obsolete. One was that both He and the Jews thew so directly from the OT that their ideas of the Messiah and His work were essentially the same, the chief question at issue being whether or not Jesus was the looked-for Messiah (cf. Schott- gen, Hor. Heb. 1742; Bertholdt, Christ. Jud. 1811 ; Gfiorer, Jahr. d. Hcils, 1838). The other was the theory that the gospel preaclied by Jesus was only a reformed Judaism (Griitz, Gcsch. d. Juden, 1867, iii. 217 ; Kohler, I.e.). But ' such a reconstruction of history belongs wholly to the past' (Lucius, Der Essenismus, 1881, p. 8);* and we can set forth the relation of Jesus to Pharisaic Judaism better by way of contrast than of comparison (cf. Bousset, Jesu Predigt, p. 7 ; Chamberlain, Grimd- lagen d. 19 Jahr. 1900, i. 221). 'Jesus' appearance was really not a fulfilment, but a contradiction of the Jewish religion.' If there was anything the Phari- sees lacked, it was religious originality. Chamber- lain says, ' The fable that the Jews had especial qualifications for religion has been finally destroyed' (i. 29). Jesus did stand upon the soil of OT piety, and was in vital relation to current Judaism ; but His unique Divine consciousness as Son of God led Him to s])eak with absolute authority respecting both. Whatever might have been said to men of old time must yield to His ' I say unto you ' : and no word of prophet or scribe or Pharisee had any authority for Him (Jn 7^''). When He spoke, God spoke, and all must hearken and obey (7^").
The theologj' of the Pliarisees was crude and un-
* Cf., however, .J. Weiss, Wernle, Wrede, Weinel, etc., of the ReligionsgeschichtUche school, who incline again towards the position of Renan, Griitz, Geiger.
PHARISEES
PHARISEES
353
seientitic, — ' a terrible mass of conHicting state- ments and debasing superstitions' (Ederslieim, Lift and Times, i. Iu6), everywliere limited by national conditions. It was less rej\sonable than certain views of the Sadducees, and lacked tlie mystic free- dom from sacerdotalism of the Es>eues. It had no appreciation of tliat natural theologj- so dear to tlie Greeks, or of the immanence of (iod a> Father which Jesus saw in every tiower of the field.-" Art, philosophy, science, historj-, culture were avoided as secular and profane. The Pharisees ' killed nature bj* legal prescriptions' (Wellhausen, Phar. u. Sndd. p. 19). In their confused teachings drawn from the OT by traditional exegesis, tlu-ee great groujis of thought may be distinguished ; they refer to God, His revelation in the Law, and the hope of a promised Messiah. The thirteen articles of the Jewish Confession of faith still show the same division (cf. Landau, Die (dten Gebetc d. H. 1843, p. 120) as ajipeared in R^ibbinical preaching in the time of Christ. Honour God, keep His Law as far as possible, and through all failures hope for the mercy of God in the Messianic age — that is the prevalent course of thought in PharLsaic Judaism. NT A\ Titers follow it also. iSt. Paul teaches a just God, His holy Law, and peace tlu-ough faith in the Messiah. St. Peter, when the Law convicted men of murder, preached to them repentance toward God and faith in the slain Messiah, Jesus (Ac 2^-38 3'*''). St. John sums up the contrast between Jew and Christian in the Law of God given by Moses, and grace and truth coming in the Messiah (1"). And when the Jews attacked early Christianity, their opjxjsition lay along these lines (6"). Stephen •.vas stoned for blaspheming God, Moses, and the customs of the Pharisees, and doing so in the name of Jesus Christ. In like manner Jesus was accused of blasphemy against God, violating His Law, and claiming to fultil the Messianic hoj>e.
1. Doctrine of God. — (1) Pharisoif view of Divine transcendence. — The Pharisees had an aVjstract, transcendental view of God, which gave rise to the legalism that marks tlieii- teachings, and added colour to their Messianic hope (cf. Baldensperger, Sclbsfbcicussfsein Jesii, p. 45). Opposition to heathenism, coupled with Rabbinical study of the UT, produced this conception. God was Creator in the beginning, and will be final Judge at the end ; but meantime He is a far-ott" ruler of the Universe. His name, the mysterious rerpaypdixpLaTov, was no longer spoken ; and all anthropomorphic and human- like features in God were set aside. The God who tabernacled in Israel was succeeded bv ' the God of heaven' (1 Mac 3^, Enoch 13^ 106", 2 Es 8*, Ps-Sol 2»*, To 7"). ' God ' and ' heaven ' became interchangeable terms ; and in place of words about the personal care of Jehovah, we meet cosmological and meteorological discussions of the stars and rain and snow, Avith suggestions of sun-worship (Enoch 72^, Ps-Sol 213-" 4-1). It was a deistic \iew of God that became prominent. Two important Wews grew out of this theology : one was the doctrine of middle beings lietween God and man — good and evil spirits, angels, esjjecially the Mcmra or mediat- ing Word of God, and the Holy Spirit ; the other was a personal conception of God, which appeared in belief in indi\-idual immortality and personal resurrection as involved in responsibility to God and hope of entrance into the Messianic Kingdom. A further outgrowtli of this theology was the teaching that keeping carefully the Law of God would hasten the coming of the Messianic King- dom. Thus Divine transcendence, mediation, indi- vidual piety, legalism, and the Messianic hope Mere closely related elements in the Pharisaic teacliings.