This came about in an exchange with (I think) a Lutheran; some sort of Protestant, at any rate, in a Protestant venue.
*****
The Pharisees are usually regarded by Christians of all stripes as the “bad guys” in the New Testament. In many respects they were. But they remained the mainstream Jewish tradition, and they accepted the view that Moses received oral tradition from God on Mt. Sinai in addition to the written law, and many other theological views that Christianity inherited.
Both Jesus and Paul assumed and followed various pharisaical customs and practices. The biggest problem of all for those who want to say they are all bad, is that Paul called himself a Pharisee twice at his trial (Acts 23:6; 26:5) and again in Philippians 3:5 (the first instance clearly in the present tense). That doesn’t harmonize well with the attempt to completely demonize the Pharisees.
Our friend argued that Paul saying “I am a Pharisee” during his trial (Acts 23:6, RSV) is essentially nullified because in context he also mentioned his past life as a Pharisee (“a son of Pharisees”). He was basically accusing St. Paul of lying and sophistry: pretending to be a Pharisee as a methodological tactic to cause division between the Pharisees and Sadducees who were present at his trial. But he didn’t have to pretend or lie in order to do that. The division remained, and by his identifying himself as of one of the two parties, this would cause division between them.
My father wasn’t Catholic; he was a Methodist. But if he were a Catholic, I could state, “I am a Catholic, the son of a Catholic.” The fact that I mentioned that my father also was has no bearing whatsoever on whether I am one or not today. It merely strengthens the statement by placing it in the context of a familial, upbringing tie as well as a theological one.
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (not Catholic; nor are any of the other commentaries I will cite) makes a great comment on the passage:
Was St. Paul at that time really a Pharisee? Was he not, as following in his Master’s footsteps, the sworn foe of Pharisaism? The answer to that question, which obviously ought to be answered and not suppressed, is that all parties have their good and bad sides, and that those whom the rank and file of a party most revile may be the most effective witnesses for the truths on which the existence of the party rests. The true leaders of the Pharisees had given a prominence to the doctrine of the Resurrection which it had never had before. They taught an ethical rather than a sacrificial religion. Many of them had been, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa, secret disciples of our Lord. At this very time there were many avowed Pharisees among the members of the Christian Church (Acts 15:5). St. Paul, therefore, could not be charged with any suppressio veri in calling himself a Pharisee. It did not involve even a tacit disclaimer of his faith in Christ. It was rather as though he said, “I am one with you in all that is truest in your creed. I invite you to listen and see whether what I now proclaim to you is not the crown and completion of all your hopes and yearnings. Is not the resurrection of Jesus the one thing needed for a proof of that hope of the resurrection of the dead of which you and your fathers have been witnesses?”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible concurs:
He was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I “was”, but I “am” a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation.
Meyer’s NT Commentary agrees, too:
He designates himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other than the religious society of the Pharisees; and particularly in the doctrine of the resurrection, Paul, as a Christian, continued to defend the confession of the Pharisees (in opposition to all Sadduceeism) according to its truth confirmed in the case of Christ Himself (Acts 4:1 f.). His contending against the legal righteousness, hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his consequent labouring in an anti-Pharisaical sense, were directed not against the sect in itself, but against its moral and other perversions. Designated a Jew, Paul still remained what he was from his birth, a Pharisee, and as such an orthodox Jew, in contrast to Sadducean naturalism.
Likewise, Expositor’s Greek Testament:
It is difficult to see why the Apostle should not describe himself as a Pharisee in face of the statement, Acts 15:5, that many members of the sect were also members of the Christian Church. They, like St. Paul, must have acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah. But that Messiahship was attested by the avowal of the resurrection of Jesus, and the resurrection was a prominent article of the Pharisees’ creed. In the acceptance of this latter doctrine St. Paul was at one not only with the “Pharisees who believed,” but with the whole sect, and that he used the title in this limited way, viz., with relation to the hope of the resurrection, is plain from the context, which fixes the limitation by the Apostle’s own words.
As to Acts 26:5, it’s true that it isn’t technically present tense. But since it has to be harmonized with Acts 23:6 which is present tense, it harmonizes (as all Scripture does). Paul states, “according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.” Note the “our religion.” He doesn’t consider that Christianity is a separate religion from Judaism, but rather, is an extension of it, harmonious with it, or a consistent development of Judaism (which indeed it is).
I could say, “I have lived as a Catholic” [since 1990, in my case]. That statement alone doesn’t necessarily imply that I have since ceased to live as or be a Catholic, though it might. I could also say, “I have lived as a pagan occultist” [which was true from 1970 or so through to 1977]. In that case it did cease. But since we have to harmonize 26:5 with 23:6, we see that it is consistent with a continued allegiance.
In Philippians 3:3-10, he never states that he has ceased to be a Pharisee. He couldn’t, because that would contradict Acts 23:6 and it would 1) make him a liar or equivocator, and 2) make the Bible contradict itself, which inspired revelation cannot do. And so it’s saying the same thing. Paul writes in 3:5: “of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee”. He was still an Israelite, still from the tribe of Benjamin, still a Hebrew, and still a Pharisee.
As two of the commentaries I cited noted, Acts 15:5 refers to “some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees.” There is, therefore, nothing intrinsically inconsistent for a Christian to continue to be a Pharisee (whereas there are no Christian Sadducees, because they were basically the theological liberals of the time). Paul was a Pharisee, and so was, in fact, Jesus.
*
***
*
Photo credit: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1618-1620); attributed to Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: Reply to a Protestant who disputed that St. Paul called himself a Pharisee in the present tense (Acts 23:6; cf. Acts 26:5; Phil 3:5). Acts 15:5 also refers to Christian Pharisees.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In