Images de page
PDF
ePub

PETER

proceedings. He left Jerusalem, but it is not said where he went. Certainly not to Rome, where there are no traces of his presence before the latter part of his life. Some years later (A. D. 51) we find him in Jerusalem at the convention of apostles and elders, assembled to consider the question whether converts should be circumcised. Peter took the lead in the discussion, contending that salvation came through grace, which was received through faith; and that all distinctions between believers were thereby removed (15:7, sq.). His argument was enforced by James, and the question was at once and finally settled. A painful collision occurred between Peter and Paul at Antioch. Peter had there eaten with Gentiles; but when certain from Jerusalem, sent by James, came, fearful of offending them (representing as they did the circumcision), he withdrew from all social intercourse with the Gentiles. Paul, apprehensive of disastrous consequences, and believing that Peter was infringing upon a great principle, says that he "withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11-14). This controversy did not destroy their brotherly communion, which continued to the end of Peter's life (2 Pet. 3:15, 16).

PETHOR

istics of Peter were: "Devotion to his Master's person (John 13:37), even leading him into extravagance (13:9), and an energetic disposition, which showed itself sometimes as boldness (Matt. 14:29) and temper (John 18:10). His temperament was choleric, and he easily passed from one extreme to another (13:8, 9)" (MeC. and S., Cyc., s. v.). "The contrast between Peter of the gospels-impulsive, unsteadfast, slow of heart to understand the mysteries of the kingdom-and the same apostle as he meets us in the Acts, firm and courageous, ready to go to prison and to death, the preacher of the faith, the interpreter of Scripture, is one of the most convincing proofs of the power of Christ's resurrection and the mighty working of the pentecostal gift" (E. H. Plumptre, Bible Educator, vol. iv, p. 129).

NOTE. (1) Peter's prominence as an apostle. By consulting Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2: 14:33, we learn that Peter was among the most beloved of Christ's disciples. Sometimes he speaks in the name of the twelve (Matt. 19:27; Luke 12:41); sometimes he answers when questions are addressed to them all (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29); sometimes Jesus addresses him in place of them all (Matt. 26:40). His eminence among the apostles depended partly on the fact that he was chosen among the first, and partly on his own peculiar traits. This position became more decided after the ascension of Jesus, and perhaps in consequence of the saying in John 21:15, sq. The early Church regarded him as the representative of the apostolic body-a very distinct theory from that which makes him their head or governor in Christ's and certainly never claimed any powers which did not stead. Primus inter pares, Peter held no distinct office, belong equally to all of his fellow-apostles (MCC. and S. Cyc., s. v.). (2) The rock. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," etc. "The expres sion this rock upon which I will build my church, has received very different interpretations... in various ages. The first is the construction given by the Church ually, that the commission constituted him supreme of Rome.... It aflrms that the rock is Peter individapostle, with authority, inherited from him by the bishops of Rome. But, 1. As may be shown, not Peter alone, but each apostle, was a rock and a recipient of the keys, and all were coequal in powers. 2. Were the authority conveved to Peter alone and personally, it must still be shown that this personal prerogative was among the successional attributes conferred upon him. 3. That Peter was ever bishop of Rome is without historical foundation; and the pretense of a succession from him by the Romish bishop is a fable.

Peter was probably employed for the most part in building up and completing the organization of Christian communities in Palestine and the adjoining districts. There is, however, strong reason to believe that he visited Corinth at an early period. The name of Peter as founder, or joint founder, is not associated with any local church save those of Corinth, Antioch, or Rome, by early ecclesiastical tradition. From 1 Pet. 5:13, 14, it is probable that Peter either visited or resided for some time at Babylon, and that Mark was with him there when he wrote that epistle. "It may be considered as a settled point that he did not visit Rome before the last year of his life. The evidence for his martyrdom there is complete, while there is a total absence of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers. Clement of Rome, writing before the end of the 1st century, speaks of it, but does not mention the place, that... I understand that it is the apostle himself who is being, of course, well known to his readers. Ignatius, in the undoubtedly genuine epistle to the Romans (ch. 4), speaks of Peter in terms which imply a special connection with their church. In the 2d century Dionysius of Corinth, in the epistle to Soter, bishop of Rome (ap. Euseb., H. E., ii, 25). states, as a fact universally known and accounting

for the intimate relations between Corinth and

the rock; yet not as a man, nor as a private confessor of the Saviour's Messiahship, nor as lord of the apostolic twelve, but as a specimen and representative of what all the twelve were" (Whedon, Com.).

PETER, EPISTLES OF. See BIBLE. PETHAHI'AH (Heb., peth-akh-yaw', freed by Jehovah).

1. A priest, head of the nineteenth course in the reign of David (1 Chron. 24:16), B. C. about 970.

Rome, that Peter and Paul both taught in Italy, and suffered martyrdom about the same time. In 2. A Levite in the time of Ezra, who had marshort, the churches most nearly connected with Rome and those least affected by its influ- ried a foreign wife (Ezra 10:23). He is probably ence, which was as yet but inconsiderable in the the same who is mentioned in Neh. 9:5, B. C. East, concur in the statement that Peter was a

about 445.

3. The son of Meshezabeel and descendant of

445.

joint founder of that church, and suffered death Zerah, who was counselor of King Artaxerxes in in that city. The time and manner of the apostle's martyrdom are less certain. The early writ-matters relating to the Jews (Neh. 11:24), B. C. ers imply, or distinctly state, that he suffered at or about the same time with Paul, and in the Neronian persecution. All agree that he was crucified. Origen says that at his own request he was crucified with his head downward."

4. Character. Among the leading character

PE THOR (Heb. 7, peth-ore), a town in Mesopotamia where Balaam resided (Num. 22:5; Deut. 23:4). It was probably a noted seat of Babylonian magi, since these wise men were accustomed to congregate in particular localities.

PETHUEL

It is supposed to have been near Tiphsah, on the
Euphrates, but this is uncertain.

PETHU ́EL (Heb. E, peth-oo-ale', enlarged of God), the father of the prophet Joel (Joel 1:1), B. C. before 760.

PETITION. See PRAYER.

PEUL’THAI (Heb. E, peh-ool-leh-thah'ee, my wages), the eighth-named son of Obed-edom, a Levite, and one of the porters of the tabernacle in the reign of David (1 Chron. 26:5), B. C. after

1000.

PHAʼLEC (Gr. Þáλek, fal'-ek), a Grecized form (Luke 3:35) of the name of PELEG (q. v.).

PHAL'LU (Gen. 46:9). See PALLU. PHALTI (Heb., pal-tee', delivered), the son of Laish of Gallim, to whom Saul gave Michal in marriage after he had driven away David (1 Sam. 25:44), B. C. before 1004. The only other reference to him is when Michal was restored to David, "And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner unto

him, Go return. And he returned" (2 Sam. 3:15, 16, where he is called Phaltiel), B. C. about 977. PHAL'TIEL (Heb., pal-tee-ale', deliverance of God), the son-in-law of Saul (2 Sam. 3: 15); elsewhere called PHALTI (q. v.).

PHANU'EL (Gr. Þavový?, fan-00-ale', probably for Penuel, face of God), an Asherite, and father of Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:36), B. C.

about 80.

PHARAOH

Civ., pp. 359, 366). The monuments tell us, not only of the supposed supernatural character and priestly functions, but also of their official duties, pleasures, wars, harems, official members of the royal household (pp. 336, sq.). Of these Pharaohs there are several mentioned in the Bible:

1. The Pharaoh of Abraham. (1) Identification. By Smith (Bib. Dict., s. v.) this Pharaoh is identified with Salatis, the head of the fifteenth dynasty, and by Dr. Strong (MeC. and S., Cyclopædia, s. v.) with Binothris of the second (Thinitic) dynasty. (2) History. The first PhaAbraham's visit to Egypt. raoh of Scripture is mentioned in connection with The beauty of Sarai, Abraham's wife, was reported to Pharaoh, and he, believing the statement of the patriarch that she was his sister, took her to his house. "He en treated Abraham well for her sake," presenting him with cattle and slaves. God interfered and smote Pharaoh and his house with great plagues, The king restored Sarai to Abraham untouched, which were accepted as punishment from Jehovah. chided him for his untruth, and told him to depart, appointing an escort to conduct him out of the land, with his wife and possessions (Gen. 12: 15-20), B. C. 2260.

2. The Pharaoh of Joseph. (1) Identifica tion. There is great difficulty in determining who this Pharaoh was. He is identified by Wilkinson. who is decidedly of the opinion that he was not a shepherd king with Isirtesen 1, one of the kings of his sixteenth dynasty of Tanites (Egypt, i, 42, 43). Bunsen prefers to identify him with Osirteand declares him to be the Sesostris of classical sen III, of the seventeenth dynasty of Memphites, writers. Josephus says that he was a shepherd. Smith (Dict., s. v.) accepts the statement of Eusebius that the Pharaoh to whom Jacob went was the Shepherd Apophis, of the fifteenth dynasty, who, he says, appears to have ruled from the time of Joseph's appointment (or perhaps somewhat earlier) until Jacob's death. Strong (McC. and S., Cyclopædia, s. v.) does not think that this Pharaoh was one of the shepherd kings, and is inclined to identify him with one of the eighth (Memphitic) dynasty, whose names are unrecorded. (2) Rule, etc. The state of religion during the reign of this Pharaoh appears to have been less corrupt than at the time of Moses. Jehovah seems to have been recognized as God, although symbolic worship had been introduced. His government was doubtless absolute (Gen. 41:40–43), and yet he seems to have been a wise and prudent monarch, anxious for the welfare of his people. His capital was near Goshen (Gen. 45:10), and the civilization and prosperity of Egypt during his reign was very great (Wilkinson,

PHA'RAOH, the common title of the kings of Egypt in the Bible. The name (Ileb., par-o') is derived from the Egyptian word Piré, or Phre, the sun. It "was probably given in the earliest times to the Egyptian kings as being the chief on earth, as the sun was the chief among the heavenly bodies, and afterward, when this luminary became the object of idolatrous worship, as the representation or incarnation of their sun god Phra or Re" (Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt, iv, 267). "Son of the sun' was the title of every Pharaoh, and the usual comparison made by the priesthood of their monarchs, when returning from a success. ful war was that his power was exalted in the world as the sun was in the heavens" (Wilkinson, i, 400; iv, 288). "The Pharaohs are blood relations of the sun god, some through their father, others through their mother, directly begotten by the god, and their souls as well as their bodies have a supernatural origin; each soul being a donble detached from Horus, the successor of Osiris, and the first to reign alone over Egypt. This divine double is infused into the royal infant ati, 43). birth in the same manner as the ordinary double is 3. The Pharaoh of the Oppression. incarnate in common mortals. . . . Just as the head (1) Identification. Manetho supposes this Phaof a family was in his household the priest par raoh to have been Tethmosis (Thothmes); Wilkinexcellence of the gods of that family-just as the son identifies him with Amosis (Ames); while chief of a nome was in his nome the priest par Lord Prudhoe argues that it was Rameses 1. Sayce excellence in regard to the gods of the nome-so (Bib. Researches, p. 105) says that Rameses II was was Pharaoh the priest par excellence of the gods the Pharaoh of the Oppression. (2) Reign. Durof all Egypt, who were his special deities. . . . Heing his reign the Israelites were sorely oppressed, maintained daily intercourse with the gods, and they, on their part, did not neglect any occasion of communicating with him" (Maspero, Dawn of

the king fearing that in case of war they would make common cause with his enemies, and then remove from Egypt. First taskmasters were ap

PHARAOH

pointed over them, who were to oppress them with hard labor, and thus prevent their increase (Exod. 1:11). As this plan did not accomplish the desired end, the destruction of the male children at their birth was resorted to. And when this was found not to produce the intended result the command was given out that every Hebrew boy should be thrown into the river Nile (vers. 15-22). It was his daughter who found and adopted Moses (2:5-10).

4. The Pharaoh of Moses's Exile was probably another person than the preceding, as otherwise he must have reigned the unusual period of forty years. This king, having heard of Moses slaying an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, sought to kill Moses (Exod. 2:11-15). That this was not the same Pharaoh is confirmed by intimation in Exod. 4:19, which seems to tell us that the king who sought to take Moses's life lived nearly to the time of his return to Egypt, which would make his reign over eighty years.

5. The Pharaoh of the Exodus. (1) Identification. The following are some of the opinions respecting this Pharaoh: Wilkinson supposes him to have been Thothmes III, of the 18th dynasty; Manetho, according to Africanus, makes him to have been Amos, the first of that line of kings; Lord Prudhoe identities him with Pthamen, the last of that dynasty. Dr. McCurdy, in Art. EGYPT, gives the time of Rameses III as B. C. 12201190, and places the exode at B. C. 1210. (2) When Moses asked Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to go into the desert and sacrifice to Jehovah he refused and commanded his taskmasters to exact

the tale of bricks as before, while obliging the people to provide their own straw. He hardened his heart to all evidence, furnished by the plagues, of God's power and purpose to deliver, and followed up his reluctant consent to their departure by an effort to bring them back by force of arms (Exod., chaps. 5-14). His acts prove him to have been a man at once impious and superstitious, alternately rebelling and submitting. Whether he was drowned with his army in the Red Sea is not stated in the narrative, although another passage (Psa. 136:15) appears to confirm it.

6. The Brother-in-law of Hadad. (1) Identification. Although we have chronological indications and the name of this Pharaoh's wife to aid in identifying him, yet unfortunately the history of Egypt at this time is so obscure that we have not clear information as to its kings. The probability is that the Pharaohs of the time of David and Solomon were Tanites; and, if we take the numbers of Eusebius, Osochor is probably the Pharaoh in question, while according to Africanus he would be Psusennes I. (2) Scripture notice. Some time during the reign of David Hadad the

Edomite, and David's bitter enemy, fled to Egypt, where he was received with distinction by Pharaoh, who gave him for wife the sister of Tahpenes, the queen (1 Kings 11:14-19), B. C. before 1015. He is probably different from

7. The Father-in-law of Solomon. The daughter of this Pharaoh was married to Solomon not later than the eleventh year of his reign, when the temple was finished, having been commenced in the fourth year (1 Kings 6:1, 37, 38). Mention is made (9:16) of an expedition led by him against the city of Gezer, which he gave to his daughter, the wife of Solomon. It is probable

[graphic]

Mummy Head of Rameses II.

that she was a convert to the faith of Solomon, as at this period of his life he would hardly have married an idolatress.

8. The Father-in-law of Mered. In 1 Chron. 4:18 mention is made of a Pharaoh whose daughter, Bithiah, was married to Mered, an Israelite. The date of this marriage is uncertain, being fixed by some at the time of the exode, while others bring down this event to the times of, or near those of, David. "The most interesting feature connected with this transaction is the name Bithiah (daughter of Jehovah), given to the daughter of Pharaoh. It exhibits the true faith of Israel as exerting its influence abroad, and gathering proselytes even in the royal house of idolatrous Egypt."

9. Pharaoh, the Opponent of Sennacherib. This Pharaoh can only be the Sethos mentioned by Herodotus as the opponent of Sennacherib, and may be reasonably supposed to be the Zet of Manetho, the last king of the twentythird dynasty. He reigned in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (B. C. about 701), and was the contemporary of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, and of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (Isa. 36:6).

PHAREZ

10. Pharaoh-Necho II (Heb. 1 and 2, nek-o). (1) Identification. This Pharaoh was of the Saite twenty-sixth dynasty, of which Manetho makes him either the fifth ruler (Africanus) or the sixth (Eusebius). Herodotus calls him Nekos, and assigns to him a reign of sixteen years, which is confirmed by the monuments. (2) History. Pharaoh-necho was king of Egypt during the reigns of Josiah, Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim, kings of Judah (2 Kings 23:29-34), and probably for some time after (24:7). "He seems to have been an enterprising king, as he is related to have attempted to complete the canal connecting the Red Sea with the Nile, and to have sent an expedition of Phoenicians to circumnavigate Africa, which was successfully accomplished. At the commencement of his reign, B. C. 610, he made war against the king of Assyria, and, being encountered on his way by Josiah, defeated and slew the king of Judah at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29, 30; 2 Chron. 35: 20-24). Necho seems to have soon returned to Egypt; perhaps he was on his way thither when he deposed Jehoahaz. The army was probably posted at Carchemish, and was there defeated by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Necho (B. C. 607), that king not being, as it seems, then at its head (Jer. 46:1, 2, 6, 10). This battle led to the loss of all the Asiatic dominions of Egypt (2 Kings 24:7)."

PHARISEES

as the second son (Num. 26:20). His family was very numerous, as is shown in Ruth 4:12: "Let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah." His descendants were notable in the time of David (1 Chron. 11:11, etc.; 27:2, 3) and after the captivity (1 Chron. 9:4; Neh. 11:4–6). In several of these passages he is called PEREZ. PHAR'ISEES (Gr papioaiws, far-is-al'-yos, a separatist, from Heb., paw-rash', to separate), 1. Name. The name Separatists is thought by some to have been derived from that separation which took place in the time of Zerubbabel, and then again in the time of Ezra, when Israel sepa rated from the heathen dwelling in the land and from their uncleanness (Ezra 6:21; 9:1, 10.11; Neh. 9:2; 10:29). But this is correctly objected to on the ground that their name must have come to the Pharisees in consequence of their stricter view of the notion of uncleanness, not only from the uncleanness of the heathen, but from that with which they believed the great portion of Israel to have been affected. This seems to have been the sense in which they were called the separated or the separating, and they might have been so called from either praise or blame. It is not probable that they took the name themselves, but that their adversaries called them "the separatists." They called themselves Chaberim (Heb., khab-ar', associate), this term being in the language of the Mishna and of ancient rabbinical literature in general exactly identical with Perushim ; a Chaber in them meaning one who strictly observes the lax, especially the laws relating to cleanness and uncleanness.

11. Pharaoh-Hophra. (1) Identification. This Pharaoh is generally thought to be the Apries mentioned by Herodotus, and called Vaphres by Manetho; he was the grandson of Necho II. (2) History. The Scriptures introduce him as in intimate alliance with Zedekiah, whom he aided against Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 44:30). Josephus 2. Origin. The priests and scribes determined (Ant., x, 7, 3) states that Nebuchadnezzar, on the inner development of Israel after the captivity. hearing of the march of the Egyptians, broke up Virtually identical in Ezra's time, they became from before Jerusalem, met the Egyptians, conmore and more separated, until, in the Maccabæan quered them in battle, drove them out of Syria, period, two parties, sharply contrasted with each and then returned to the siege of Jerusalem. It other, were developed from them. The Sadducean is certain that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jeru-party came from the ranks of the priests, the salem in the ninth year of Zedekiah, and took it in the eleventh year (39:1), B. C. 586. It is probable (37:7) that on hearing of Nebuchadnezzar's approach with his entire army Pharaoh retired from the contest and left Jerusalem to its fate. “Some time thereafter, during his reign, his kingdom was overrun by NEBUCHADNEZZAR (q. v.), but not long occupied by him (46:13, sq.). His overthrow was predicted by Jeremiah (33:10; 44:30). No subsequent Pharaoh is mentioned in Scripture, but there are predictions doubtless referring to the misfortunes of later princes until the second Persian conquest, when the prophecy "There shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt" (Ezek. 30:13) was fulfilled (McC. and S., Cyc.; Smith, Bib. Dict.). See EGYPT.

PHA'RES (Matt. 1:3; Luke 3:33). See PHA

REZ.

PHA'REZ (Heb. 7, peh'-rets, breach), a twin son (with Zarah) of Judah by Tamar (his daughter-in-law (Gen. 38:29; 1 Chron. 2:4). Little is known of his personal history, although his family is often mentioned. He and his brethren were numbered among the sons of Judah (Gen. 46:12), and after the death of Er and Onan he is named

party of the Pharisees from the Scribes. The characteristic feature of the Pharisees arises from their legal tendency, that of the Sadducees from their social position. "When once the accurate observance of the ceremonial law was regarded as the true essence of religious conduct, Pharisaism already existed, but not as a distinct sect or party. It appears that during the Greek period, the chief priests and rulers of the people took up an increasingly low attitude toward the law, they (the Pharisees) united themselves more closely into an association of such as made a duty of its punctilious observance." They appear in the time of John Hyrcanus under the name of "Pharisees," no longer indeed on the side of the Maccabees, but in hostile opposition to them. The reason for this was that the Maccabæans' chief

object was no longer the carrying out of the law, but the maintenance and extension of their political power. The stress laid upon religious interests by the Pharisees had won the bulk of the nation to their side, and Queen Alexandra, for the sake of peace with her people, abandoned the power to the Pharisees. Their victory was now complete; the whole conduct of internal affairs was in their hands. All the decrees of the

66

PHARISEES

Pharisees done away with by Hyrcanus were reintroduced, and they completely ruled the public life of the nation. This continued in all essentials even during subsequent ages. Amid all the changes of government under Romans and Herodians the Pharisees maintained their spiritual authority. Consistency with principle was on their side, and this consistency procured them the spiritual supremacy. Although the Sadducean high priests were at the head of the Sanhedrin, the decisive influence upon public affairs was in the hands of the Pharisees. They had the bulk of the nation as their ally, and women especially were in their hands. They had the greatest influence upon the congregations, so that all acts of public worship, prayers, and sacrifices were performed according to their injunctions. Their Eway over the masses was so absolute that they could obtain a hearing even when they said any. thing against the king or the high priest, consequently they were the most capable of counteracting the designs of the kings. Hence, too, the Sadducees, in their official acts, adhered to the demands of the Pharisees, because otherwise the multitude would not have tolerated them" (Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii, vol. ii, p. 28).

political, but from a religious point of view. The
Pharisees were by no means a 'political' party, at
least not directly. Their aim, viz., the strict carry-
ing out of the law, was not political, but religious.
So far as no obstruction was cast in the way of
this, they could be content with any government.
It was only when the secular power prevented the
practice of the law in that strict manner which
the Pharisees demanded, that they gathered to-
gether to oppose it, and then really became in a
certain sense a political party, opposing even ex-
ternal resistance to external force. To politics as
such they were always comparatively indifferent."
We must consider the Pharisee as acting under
two different religious views: (1) The idea of the
Divine Providence might be made the starting
point. Thence would result the thought that the
sway of the heathen over Israel was the will of
God. Hence, first of all, this chastisement of God
must be willingly submitted to; a heathen and,
moreover, a harsh government must be willingly
borne, if only the observance of the law was not
thereby prevented. (2) Israel's election might be
placed in the foreground. Then the rule of the
heathen over the people of God would appear as
an abnormity whose abolition was by all means to
be striven for. Israel must acknowledge no other
king than God alone and the ruler of the house of
David, whom he anointed. The supremacy of the
heathen was illegal and presumptuous. From this
standpoint it was questionable, not merely whether
obedience and payment of tribute to a heathen
power was a duty, but whether it was lawful
(Matt. 22:17, sq.; Mark 12:14, sq.; Luke 20:22, sq.).

3. Teaching. (1) Immortality. The Pharisees teach "that every soul is imperishable, but that only those of the righteous pass into another body, while those of the wicked are, on the contrary, punished with eternal torment " (Josephus, Wars, ii, 8, 14); or "they hold the belief that an immortal strength belongs to souls, and that there are beneath the earth punishments and rewards for those who in life devoted themselves to virtue or vileness, and that eternal imprisonment is appointed for the latter, but the possibility of returning to life for the former" (Josephus, Ant., xviii, 1, 3). The above is merely the Jewish doc- | Pharisee, because the latter was to him included trine of retribution and resurrection (Dan. 12:2), and testified to by all subsequent Jewish literature, and also by the New Testament, as the common possession of genuine Judaism. (2) Angels,

etc.

4. Practices. As an Israelite avoided as far as possible all contact with a heathen, lest he should thereby be defiled, so did the Pharisee avoid as far as possible contact with the non

[ocr errors]

in the notion of the unclean Am-haarez (i e., other Israelites than Pharisees). When, then. the gospels relate that the Pharisees found fault with the free intercourse of Jesus with "publicans and sinners,' and with his entering into their houses (Mark 2: 14-17; Matt. 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32), this agrees exactly with the standpoint here described. 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 (Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel).

The Pharisees also taught the existence of angels and spirits, while the Sadducees denied them (Acts 23:8), in this respect also representing the general standpoint of later Judaism. (3) Providence, human freedom, etc. The Pharisees "make everything depend on fate and on God, and teach that the doing of good is indeed chiefly the affair of man, but that fate also cooperates in every transaction" (Josephus, Wars, ii, 8, 14). "They assert that everything is accomplished by faith. They do not, however, deprive the human will of spontaneity, it having pleased God that there should be a mixture, and that to the will of fate should be added the human will with its virtue or baseness" (Josephus, Ant., xviii, 1, 3). "If we strip off its Greek form, from what Josephus says, it is nothing more than this, that according to the Pharisees everything that happens takes place through God's providence, and that consequently in human actions also, whether good or bad, a cooperation of God is to be admitted. And this is a genuine Old Testament view" (Schurer, div. ii, vol. ii, p. 15). (4) Political. "In politics the standpoint of the Pharisees was the genuinely Jewish 5. Pharisaism and Christianity Comone of looking at political questions not from a pared. (1) In relation to the Old Testament

« PrécédentContinuer »