The Seven Types of Pharisees and the Fear of God in the Synoptic Gospels

How to cite this article: Brad H. Young, “The Seven Types of Pharisees and the Fear of God in the Synoptic Gospels,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/29210/].

This article was written in Honor of David Bivin’s 85^th Birthday.

During the Second Temple period and beyond, Jewish spiritual experience concerning the inner life of the disciple generated active discussion and intense debate. The prayer of the Shema Yisrael “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one” embodied the full pursuit for the Kingdom of Heaven (Deut. 6:4). The command שְׁמַע (sh^ema‘, “Hear!”) also meant “Obey!” Embracing the Kingdom was the first step in receiving the yoke of the commandments and entering into a life of service to the sovereignty of God.^[45] In Mark 12:29 Jesus himself quotes the Shema before teaching the greatest commandment of all which is first and foremost: ”And you must love the Lord your God.” But from within the environment of this Jewish prayer a controversy emerged over which virtue, the love of God or the fear of the Lord, was the most important.^[46] The seven types of Pharisees in the rabbinic literature is a parody or a satire of the wrong motivation for obeying the commandments, producing a humorous list of negative characteristics−a severe self-criticism of hypocritical practices within a religious community−while at the same time advocating for the virtue which should produce the best motivation to achieve proper behavior through a deeper spiritual life.

The lists of seven types of Pharisees appear in both the Babylonian Talmud (BT) and the Jerusalem Talmud (JT) with small but decisive distinctions. In fact, the final argument in the Babylonian Talmud’s version of the seven types of Pharisee is directly opposite of the argument made in the Jerusalem Talmud. The former claims it is the fear of God that is most important, while the latter places the love of God as the primary force in experiencing the deeper spiritual life in service and in obedience.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the theme of love that supersedes fear rooted in the teaching of Jesus belongs to an internal Jewish debate that arose from the ‘new sensitivity’ that emerged in Second Temple Judaism. The shock waves of this ‘new sensitivity’ continued to ripple through ancient Judaism, as we can see from the conflicting rabbinic interpretations of the Seven Types of Pharisees and the revolutionary saying of Antigonus of Socho. Those shock waves also rippled throughout the Newer Testament with far-reaching implications. Service out of love combines reverential fear with love. First God Himself is described in terms of love and holiness far removed from the words of the wicked and slothful servant who described the master as a hard man who reaps where he did not sow seed. John 3:16 proclaims, “For God so loved the people of the world that He gave His only Son” (TNT). The open letter of John to the believing community expresses the demand, “Much-loved friends, we must love one another because love is from God. Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The person who does not love, does not know God. After all, God is love” (1 John 4:7-8 TNT). God created each individual with a desire to love and to be loved. The apostle Paul in writing to the congregation at Corinth concerning relationships within the community composed “the love chapter” (1 Cor. 13). He emphasized faith, hope and love. Faithfulness out of love should build relationships within the community. The apostle Paul self-designated himself as a Pharisee. In many respects, Paul was a Pharisee of love. Out of love and fear he writes, “Never grieve the Holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30 TNT).

• ^[1] L. Finkelstein, Mabo le-Messektot Abot ve-Abot d’Rabbi Natan (Introduction to the Treatises Abot and Abot of Rabbi Nathan (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950), 32-34. ↩
• ^[2] Prov. 9:10 and see the many parallels in the Hebrew Scriptures. ↩
• ^[3] Luke 3:2-14; Matt. 4:17 Mark 1:4-5. ↩
• ^[4] The Hebrew Heritage Bible the Newer Testament, trans. Brad H. Young (Tulsa: Hebrew Heritage Bible Society, 2021) [www.hebrewheritagebible.com]. The abbreviation TNT is used for the Newer Testament translation. ↩
• ^[5] Sh. Safrai, Beyime Habayit Ubeyime Hamishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994), 2:501-539. In these studies on the pious ones (חֲסִידִים [ḥ^asidim]) in rabbinic literature and beyond, Safrai unravels connections with the piety, spirituality, and basic goodness conveyed in the life and teachings of Jesus. See also Sh. Safrai, The Literature of the Sages (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 1:12-13. Especially see, Sh. Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim” Jerusalem Perspective 42/43/44 (January/June 1994), 3-22 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2685/]. ↩
• ^[6] See Avot Derabbi Natan, Version A, Chap. 37 for the later parallel to the seven types of Pharisees. The eight types of Pharisees described in this parallel are all negative. The Pharisee of love is described in derogatory terms as an individual who seeks the love of others who see his good works and religious life. Thereby they will love him for his virtues. He has for a reward the love and the affirmation from his colleagues. Compare A. Cohen and I. Brodie, eds., The Minor Tractates of the Talmud (London: Soncino Press, 1971), 1:184. ↩
• ^[7] Talmud Yerushalmi, intro., Y. Zussmann, (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2005), col. 74, on TJ Berakhot 14b, chap. 9 hal. 5. See also B. Ratner, Ahavat Tzion Veyerushalayim Metalmud Yerushalmi (Vilna: Romm, 1901), 214. ↩
• ^[8] See the translation and excellent notes in C. Malinowitz, Y. Simcha Schorr, and M. Marcus, eds., The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Yerushalmi (Mesorah Publications: Rahway, NJ, 2022), Berakhot Chap. 9, Hal. 5. The word נִיקְפִּי (niqpi) from נָקַף (nāqaf) has been understood as borrowing on credit or causing a waiting time. M. Jastrow defined it as a “knocker” or “borrower” in A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903), 935. Compare G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (New York: Schocken Books, 1973), 2:193. ↩
• ^[9] See in C. Malinowitz, Y. Simcha Schorr, and M. Marcus, eds., The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Yerushalmi, on TJ Berakhot chap. 9, hal. 5. ↩
• ^[10] TB Sotah 22b. ↩
• ^[11] TB Sotah 22b. See the annotations in the Soncino edition ed. by A. Cohen and I. Epstein, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino Press, 1985) and also the notes on TB Sotah 22b by A. Steinsaltz, Talmud Babli (Jerusalem: Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications, 1997). See also, The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Babli (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1993), elucidated by Rabbi Abba Zvi Naiman, TB Sotah 22b. ↩
• ^[12] Finkelstein, 34. ↩
• ^[13] The term לִבּוֹ גַס (libō gas) is translated as “presumptuous disregard” which is preferred to “indifference” (Notley, 308-309) or “presumption” (Urbach, 403). Sometimes it has the meaning of disregard or over familiarity. See E. Ben Yehudah, Milon Halashon Haevrit Hayeshanah Vehachadashah (Jerusalem: Hebrew Teachers’ Organization in Israel, 1959), 815-817. “Indifference” for the translation of the Hebrew phrase לִבּוֹ גַס (libō gas) communicates detachment which does not demonstrate the intensity of the Hebrew text. In his book, Urbach translates the idiom with “presumption” (The Sages, 403). This is preferred. The word גַס (gas) in Hebrew has a connotation of swelling with pride, anger, a boorish attitude, or negative feelings. It is “presumptuous disregard.” Here in the parable the word is used with לִבּוֹ (libō, “his heart”), which together sometimes means “over familiarity.” It is a presumptuous over familiarity with the father that results in disregard for his will or his motivation that is intended to inspire a meaningful life of devotion. The concept of “presumptuous over familiarity” fits this context. The son in the parable has a presumptuous over familiarity with his father which causes disregard for his father’s will. He is able to do what is required in a perfunctory manner with a presumptuous over familiarity of contempt. But this type of love is devoid of reverence or respect. It is unacceptable. Feelings of love may be inadequate without respect. ↩
• ^[14] See the edition, prolegomenon, M. Kister, Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Solomon Schechter Edition (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997). The parable is translated by the author of this article. Compare also the excellent translation by A. Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) Version B (Leiden: Brill, 1975). ↩
• ^[15] R. Steven Notley and Ze’ev Safrai, The Parables of the Sages Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi (Jerusalem: Carta, 2011), 308-309. On Avot Derabbi Natan, see M. Lerner’s contribution in Sh. Safrai, The Literature of the Sages, 1:369-379. See also K. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 519-543 for a discussion on the relationship between the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30) and the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27). ↩
• ^[16] See Brad H. Young, The Parables Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 1998), 82-97. ↩
• ^[17] See Brad H. Young, Meet the Rabbis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2007), 122. ↩
• ^[18] Urbach, The Sages, 1:403. ↩
• ^[19] David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1988), 469-489. This innovation was the result of re-evaluating the deeper-life practices within Jewish spirituality during the Second Temple Period and seeing love as an esteemed virtue. Hillel the Elder and his school helped implant this approach within Jewish faith and practice. See Y. Buxbaum, The Life and Teachings of Hillel (London: Jason Aronson, 1994), 174-183. See also David Flusser, “Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness,” J. Charlesworth and L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 71-107. ↩
• ^[20] See the important study of David Bivin, “Heniadys in the Synoptic Gospels,” Jerusalem Perspective 52 (July-Semptember, 1997), 14-15 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2785/]. The terms love and fear should be combined and understood linguistically as being connected. The faith experience flowing out of love must embrace fully the fear of the Lord. ↩
• ^[21] Finkelstein, 32-35. ↩
• ^[22] See m. Sotah 5:5 where Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai affirms that Job served God only out of fear, but Joshua ben Hyrcanos asserted that Job served also from love based upon Job 13:15 and Job 27:5. So later sages questioned and disagreed with Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai’s approach to Job. Surely many followed Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai in teaching that Job only feared God and this seems to be the position of the JT when reciting the seven types of Pharisees. ↩
• ^[23] See the conclusion of the Jerusalem Talmud’s list of the seven Pharisees above. ↩
• ^[24] Ben Sira 7:30-31, M. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Hashalem (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1972), 47. ↩
• ^[25] Sifre 32, R. Hammer, Sifre a Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 39. See L. Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2001), 54. ↩
• ^[26] Compare T. Zahavy, trans., J. Neusner, ed., The Talmud of the Land of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989), 345: “There are seven kinds of pietiests; The showy [pietist], the haughty [pietist], the parsimonious [pietist], the repaying [pietist], the fearing [pietist], the loving [pietist].” ↩
• ^[27] TB Sotah 22b. ↩
• ^[28] To my knowledge Kutscher never wrote about this. Probably most scholars want to be remembered by what they wrote. I remember clearly when David Flusser discussed this meeting he had with Kutscher, who was a very magnanimous scholar who loved to discuss textual issues. Flusser spoke about this publically in a class at Hebrew University. The linguistic evidence and the textual tradition always merit further investigation. In any case, the Gospel of Matthew provides an important insight which is pertinent first-century evidence for understanding the “shoulder Pharisee” in rabbinic literature. ↩
• ^[29] To be fair, the causitive form of the verb could be used both to “cause” good works to be loaded upon one's own shoulder to be seen by men and also to “cause” obligations to be loaded on the shoulders of others to increase their burden of religious observance. Flusser believed that the causitive form and its application linguistically tended to support Matthew's description of causing obligations to be loaded on the shoulders of others rather than loading good deeds upon one's own shoulder to be seen by others. Kutscher affirmed and agreed with this approach. ↩
• ^[30] As an early historical resource, the Synoptic Gospels provide first-century evidence for understanding more clearly some issues in early rabbinic literature. For example, Yaakov Epstein wrote about the Synoptic Gospel Sabbath controversies in order to unravel issues of pikuach nefesh in Tannaitic literature. Saving life, pikuach nefesh, overrides the observance of the Sabbath both in rabbinic literature in the Synoptic Gospels. See Yaakov Epstein, Mevoot Lesifrut Hatannaim (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1962) on Shabbat and Mevo Lenusach Hamishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1948), 2:677, where Epstein comments on the the seven types of Pharisees and their positive examples. This comparative and associative method of study is not intended to diminish in any way the great interpreters and brilliant linguists who have devoted years of study in elucidating the texts of rabbinic literature. Many are wise to start with the study of Rashi. ↩
• ^[31] See in the notes for Pnei Moshe, Rash Sirilio in the deliberations of C. Malinowitz, Y. Simcha Schorr, and M. Marcus, eds., The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Yerushalmi, on TJ Berakhot chap. 9, hal. 5. ↩
• ^[32] See in C. Malinowitz, Y. Simcha Schorr, and M. Marcus, eds., The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Yerushalmi, on TJ Berakhot chap. 9, hal. 5 and see the note ascribed to Mahara Fulda and compare Steinsaltz’s note on BT Sotah 22b. ↩
• ^[33] In the JT this type of Pharisee says to himself, “What sin is this that I am doing? I must do an equivalent good work to balance my sin with an appropriate commandment fulfilled.” See in C. Malinowitz, Y. Simcha Schorr, and M. Marcus, eds., The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Yerushalmi, on TJ Berakhot chap. 9, hal. 5. ↩
• ^[34] See also the discussion of these terms, Naiman, The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Babli (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1993), TB Sotah 22b. Naiman views the key terms for the Pharisee of love and the Pharisee of fear in this list as negative characteristics. The Pharisee of love is understood as possessing a love for reward. The Pharisee of fear is understood as possessing a fear of punishment. While his approach is possible and supported by some evidence and commentary, it seems very unlikely in this context. The rabbinic parable in Avot Derabbi Natan (Version B, Chap. 10) discussed here that praises the fear of the Lord above the love of God is a remnant of intense debate concerning an issue of early Jewish deliberations about integrity and spirituality. ↩
• ^[35] TB Sotah 22b, end. ↩
• ^[36] Finkelstein, 32-34. ↩
• ^[37] Epstein, Mevo Lenusach Hamishnah, 2:677. ↩
• ^[38] See the conclusion of the Jerusalem Talmud’s list of the seven Pharisees above. ↩
• ^[39] See Brad H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Books, 2008), 181-194. ↩
• ^[40] See David Bivin, “Rabbinic Literature: A Spiritual Treasure,” Jerusalem Perspective 41 (November/December, 1993): 13-15 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2682/]. ↩
• ^[41] Even on his death bed Alexander Jannaeus, who had mercilessly persecuted the Pharisees, advised his wife Salomne, who was to assume power after his death, not to fear the Pharisees but rather the pretenders who are hypocrites and imitate the Pharisees. See TB Sotah 22b, Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, 15, 5. His advice is remarkably similar to the words of Jesus concerning the Pharisees in Matt. 23:1-3. ↩
• ^[42] See C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 599-602. On the Parable of the Minas in the Synoptic Gospel parallel, see D. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Books, 1996), 1525-1545. Even the theme of the delay of the second advent which is referenced in the parable does not diminish the urgency for faithful stewardship. See my, Parables, 82-97. ↩
• ^[43] Jubilees 17:18, O. S. Wintermute, trans., “Jubilees,” in J. Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Doubleday: New York, 1985), 2:90. ↩
• ^[44] But as we noted, neither did the saying of Antigonus of Socho. ↩
• ^[45] See m. Berakhot 2:2. ↩
• ^[46] See E. Urbach, The Sages (trans. I. Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1975), 1:400-419. ↩