In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap". > 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people > gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of > the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They > made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this > woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded > us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 **They were using this > question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.**
> [John 8:2-6 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-6&version=NIV) What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentating on John 18:31 ("It is not lawful for us to put any man to death"), writes: >it was specially the practice of the sect of the Pharisees not to condemn any one to death (see Josephus Ben-Gorion, *Hist. Jud.* iv. 6). But weren't the Pharisees known for following the letter of the law, such as Ex. 22:18 : "Malefactors thou shalt not suffer to live"? They considered Jesus a great seducer, sorcerer, malefactor.

In the beginning of Jesus's ministry, the Pharisees were angered at Jesus but were afraid of what the crowd thought if they were to arrest Jesus. "They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet." Matthew 21:46. So, it makes me wonder how they mustered up the courage to arrest Jesus if he became more and more popular. How did they know that if they were to arrest Jesus, the crowd wouldn't turn against them after the display of the crowd just laying down palm trees when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem singing "Hosanna to the Son of David!"?

This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable. So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

Were the Pharisees being sarcastic in John 7:52, when they claimed that "no prophet ever came out of Galilee"? It is written that Jonah came from Gath-hepher, in Galilee (2 Kings 14:25).

The Apostle Paul used to be a Pharisee at one point, and Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul [citationneeded], but then Paul became a Christian through a dramatic conversion, and I don't know to what extent his beliefs on the afterlife might have changed. Did the Apostle Paul believe in the immortality of the soul? Can this question be answered objectively to any extent (on the basis of objective evidence)? Is there consensus among scholars and historians on this topic? ______________ **Note**: Is this an "obvious" question? At first glance it might look so for many, but once you have garnered some experience exchanging thoughts with [Christian mortalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) and [Annihilationists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism) (e.g. see [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/27088/38524) & [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/73790/38524)) , the answer to the question no longer looks so "obvious". _____ Related BHSE question: [What are the theological implications of Paul's continuing identifying himself as a Pharisee in Acts 23:6-10 despite being an Apostle of Christ?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74210/38524)

I understand that Sadducees were upper-class wealthy men who made up the Jewish aristocracy. Pharisees came from all economic classes but were distinguished by their rigid adherence to behaviour as interpreted from the Torah. They were prominent during the time of Jesus, but when did these two groups first arise, and which came first? Perhaps the Old Testament can shed light on this; for example do they go back to the time of Moses, or perhaps to the time of Zadok the priest? What is the origin of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

We read in Matt 16: 6-12 (NRSVCE): >Jesus said to them, “Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They said to one another, “It is because we have brought no bread.” And becoming aware of it, Jesus said, “You of little faith, why are you talking about having no bread? ........... Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the days of Jesus when dry yeast was not in vogue, people preserved a small portion of leavened dough, for use on a subsequent occasion. This is clear from the Parable of the Yeast in Mtt 13:33: > He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.” If the woman needed one measure of yeast for three measures of flour, it would not have been in the form of dry yeast we have these days, but of leavened dough set apart from previous baking. Now, leavening was considered good because it gave taste and softness to the bread and increased its shelf life. There were two options available to the breadmaker: he/she could refresh the leaven day after day by preserving the leavened dough of the most recent baking. Alternatively, one could preserve a large portion of leavened dough from the first day of baking say, Sunday and use small portions of it for leavening the flour through the full week. That would make the leaven too sour for want of renovation, but it would still act as a leavening agent. The Pharisees and Sadducees clearly showed scrupulous adherence to the Old Law which Jesus wanted to supplement with the New Law. Jesus' way of referring to the yeast, was meant to expose the confrontation. In the literal sense, he was referring to the fermented dough that had been kept too long, but it was still being used as a leavening agent. My question therefore is: Did Jesus have in mind the tradition of preserving of leavening agent, while speaking of the Pharisees' Yeast? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Paul was a Pharisee: > 6 Now **when Paul** perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “**Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees**. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” 7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 **For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all**. 9 Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” 10 And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks. > [Acts 23:6-10 ESV] And as a Pharisee, he must have believed in [Sheol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol) , [Abraham's bosom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham) (a compartment within Sheol) and the post-mortal consciousness of the spirits of the dead. This is confirmed by the [Parable of Lazarus & the rich man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus) (Luke 16:19-31), which Jesus likely based on traditional Pharisaic afterlife beliefs. For example, the Wikipedia article on the parable [says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus#Lightfoot:_a_parable_against_the_Pharisees) : > **Lightfoot: a parable against the Pharisees** > > John Lightfoot (1602–1675) treated the parable as a parody of Pharisee > belief concerning the Bosom of Abraham, and from the connection of > Abraham saying the rich man's family would not believe even if the > parable Lazarus was raised, to the priests' failure to believe in the > resurrection of Christ: > > > Any one may see, how Christ points at the infidelity of the Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy > to judge what was the design and intention of this parable. (From the > Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 3) > > E. W. Bullinger in the Companion Bible cited Lightfoot's comment, > and expanded it to include coincidence to lack of belief in the > resurrection of the historical Lazarus (John 12:10). Bullinger > considered that Luke did not identify the passage as a "parable" > because it contains a parody of the view of the afterlife: > > > **It is not called a parable because it cites a notable example of the Pharisee's tradition which had been brought from Babylon**. **Question**: According to Soul Sleep advocates, if Paul, being a Pharisee, held Pharisaic beliefs about the afterlife, does that mean that he changed his mind about the state of the dead after his conversion? Did Paul ever embrace [Christian mortalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) ? _____________ Related BHSE questions: - [When Paul said that he would like to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8), was he referring to Abraham's bosom?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/73501/38524) - [Did the Apostle Paul, as a Pharisee, believe in disembodied spirits? Acts 23:6-10](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74130/38524)

Beyond the technical meaning, what does Pharisee mean or imply within Christian teachings or homiles? What would be its synonymns? It is used quite often, but I am never quite sure what to make of what is being said, especially if someone is being criticized for being a pharisee. From my perspective, it is meant to imply, - Ostentatious - Corrupt - Incredulous But that seems perhaps incomplete, and perhaps not even accurate.

I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus. > And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 11:19 One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time. 1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid? 2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19? If yes, could someone please explain them?

A casual reader of the Gospels usually sees the Pharisees as Jesus' implacable enemies. After all, they often accused him of breaking the Laws of the Torah and Jesus frequently denounced them as hypocrites and worse. In John 5, we are told that they wanted to kill Him, and in chapters 8 and 10, they tried to stone Him. However, the honorific term "Rabbi" was generally a pharisaic title, and Jesus was referred to multiple times as Rabbi. (e.g. Mark 9:5). Additionally, at one point a group of Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod Antipas was trying to kill him. > At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” (Luke 13:31) At least one Pharisee, namely Nicodemus, defended Jesus before the Sanhedrin > 50 Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, 51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? (John 7:50-51). Joseph of Arimathea, a Sanhedrin member who was a "secret disciple" (John 19:38) was also most likely a Pharisee. A Pharisee in Capernaum invited Jesus as a guest of honor in his home > One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house, and took his place at table. (Luke 7:36) In the 20th century interpreters began to question whether gospels' portrayal of the mutual animosity between Jesus and the Pharisees is an anachronism. Religious historians point to the fact that in Jesus time, the Pharisees held diverse opinions on most matters of Jewish law and it was only later that the rabbis began expelling Jewish Christians from synagogues. In their view, the gospels' portrayal of the Pharisees reflects the reality of a later generation. Later, scholars such as Jacob Neusner explored the Jewish Jesus in his book _A Rabbi Talks with Jesus_. Hyam Maccoby went even further in his book _Jesus the Pharisee_. In his multi-volume study of the historical Jesus _A Marginal Jew_, John P. Meir undertook a monumental re-evaluation of Jesus and the Jewish culture of his times. Some scholars today thus believe that Jesus debated the Pharisees not so much as an outsider but as an active participant in arguments that the Pharisees themselves discussed, including such unresolved issues as: the paying taxes to Rome, washing hands before eating, healing on the Sabbath, when divorce is allowed, relations with Gentiles, the coming of the Messiah, and whether there will be a resurrection of the dead. So how universal was the Pharisees' opposition to Jesus. Is it possible that Jesus himself was a type of Pharisee?

In Matthew 15:2, the Pharisees accuse the disciples of Jesus of not properly washing their hands before eating. > “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do > not wash their hands when they eat.” What, if any, penalty or punishment could the disciples have incurred from the Pharisees had Jesus not refuted this accusation?

Matthew 3 and Luke 3 recount the emergence of John the Baptist and the beginning of his ministry. When the Pharisees and Sadducees come to receive his baptism, he calls them out as a "brood of vipers", with the implication that he denies them the water baptism. The account in Luke 3 proceeds to say, "What should we do then?" the crowd asked, and John gives them teachings and examples on repentance, but we do not know whether or not "the crowd" included some of these Pharisees and Sadducees, and my own inference is that it did not. Why did John call ***them*** a "brood of vipers"? Now, I understand the application of this title to these two groups overall, so I don't require an explanation of its meaning. But *why specifically in this instance when they came to be baptized*? Some may say it was to "flex" their position, show off to the people, and receive "praise" and honour from them in doing so. Or some could say that they did it to receive more blessing, and more of God's "approval". But neither of these reasons seem characteristic of them to me. Their general mindset was that they thought: 1. John was a lunatic and/or heretic, and 2. They were God's chosen group, and were already blessed and anointed to be in the positions they were in. So going to receive baptism from John just to "show off" to the people doesn't make sense in that mindset. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite: it would probably confuse the people to see these highly religious people want to receive something from a guy they considered crazy and blasphemous. So it makes me think that those who went to him were genuine in heart to receive it. But if they were, then why did John call them "brood of vipers" and deny them the baptism? I guess the implication of these passages is that they *were* doing it for selfish reasons, but if so, I can't for the life of me think what those reasons might be. So my real question is, for those Ps and Ss that went to John at the Jordan: * If they *did* have a "brood of vipers" heart, then why did they go to John in the first place? What did they have to gain by doing so? * If they went with genuine hearts to receive baptism, then why did John call them out (and possibly deny them the baptism)?

Luke 5:20-24 has Jesus forgiving the sins of a paralyzed man. > "When Jesus saw their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are > forgiven.” 21 But the scribes and Pharisees began thinking to > themselves, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive > sins but God alone?” 22 Knowing what they were thinking, Jesus > replied, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which > is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and > walk?’ 24 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority > on the earth to forgive sins...” He said to the paralytic, “I tell > you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”" Trinitarians think that the scribes and Pharisees were incorrect here in that Jesus was not blaspheming because he was, indeed, God. Yet, instead of simply stating he was God, Jesus says something different. > "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on the > earth to forgive sins ..." If the scribes and Pharisees were wrong in thinking Jesus was a man, why didn't Jesus correct them, but instead reinforce that belief by calling himself 'Son of Man' and saying he has 'authority' (why would God need to say he has authority to do something)?

I would like to know why were the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus (in his words) and what were they trying to achieve by it?

I was reflecting on [Matthew 23:23-28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23%3A23-28&version=KJV) . And came across Jesus comparing the Pharisees with several objects: filthy cups, whitewashed tombs. What is the point Jesus is trying to make here?

In Matthew 15:1–4 we see: > Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’" We see Jesus virtually defending the disciples who had failed in following a simple lesson of hygiene in an age when food was eaten directly with hand and not with the help of spoon and fork. Of course, Jesus was trying to bring the Pharisees home to more important things of life. But then, He could have started like this: "Well, I agree that my disciples are too old to be taught table manners, but..." My question is: How does the Catholic Church explain the lack of importance attributed by Jesus to the washing of hand prior to eating by His disciples, in the face of criticism by the Pharisees?

Jesus often encountered "Pharisees" and "Sadducees". For example, >34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the **Sadducees**, the **Pharisees** got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:34-36) From a Christian perspective, **Who were they and how did they differ?**

I have heard the argument that, in the time of Jesus, stoning and other forms of severe punishment according to the law had basically ceased, and therefore was only seen here to try to trick Jesus into doing, well, something (exactly what wasn't expressed). Does this argument seem historically, textually, or logically consistent with the text?