Who Were The Pharisees? 

Chapter 3

​

Was “Sha’ul Saul/Paul a Pharisee?

Explores Paul’s identity as a Pharisee and how it shaped his ministry.

​​

A Pharisee wrote a good percentage of the New Testament.

​

Sha’ul never forsook his Pharisaic identity. In Acts 23:6, he shouted that he was a Pharisee! He said, not that he "was" a Pharisee, but he said, "I am."  Plus, Torah teachers who sided with the Pharisees were open to what Sha’ul said to them. Acts 23:9, “We don’t find anything wrong with this man; and if a spirit or an angel spoke to him, what of it?” 

​

This Pharisee never stopped writing about Yeshua's father, Almighty God. This includes Philippians 4:13, which is often mistranslated as “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” The literal translation in the earliest manuscripts does not include "Christ."

 

Sha’ul’s teaching style was typical of Pharisaic reasoning.

​

As in Romans 4:1-3, Paul's teaching shares strong similarities with midrashic interpretation—a traditional Jewish method of interpreting Scripture that draws out deeper meanings, often through creative engagement with the text.

 

Let's look at how Romans 4:1–3 fits into that. 

​

“Then what should we say Avraham, our forefather, obtained by his own efforts?

For if Avraham came to be considered righteous by God because of his actions, then he has something to boast about. 

For what does the Tanakh say? ‘Avraham put his trust in God, and it was credited to his account as righteousness.’”

​

Here, he quoted the scriptures and then gave a commentary. That pattern is midrashic. He pulled a phrase from the Torah and then explored a new insight that Abraham’s trust was a model for faith, not works.

 

Genesis 15:6 (CJB) states, “He believed in Adonai, and He credited it to him as righteousness.” There was no sacrifice, and there were no works.

​

He also uses a characteristic style and questioning similar to those in Midrash Rabbah and Talmudic texts. The style includes a rhetorical approach, dialogue, and inquiry, which was meant to lead to a deeper meaning in addition to the literal one.

​​

Romans 4:9–11 (CJB):

​

“Now, is this blessing for the circumcised only, or is it also for the uncircumcised? For we say that Avraham’s trust was credited to his account as righteousness; but what state was he in when it was so credited—circumcision or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision! In fact, he received circumcision as a sign, as a seal of the righteousness he had been credited with on the ground of the trust he had while he was still uncircumcised.”

​

Paul’s midrash-like logic builds a theological case that righteousness precedes works, something rabbis would also do, connecting layers of meaning from the order of events in Torah. Because righteousness precedes works, works are a fruit of righteousness. Shau’ul/Paul also wrote in Corinthians, "Being circumcised means nothing, and being uncircumcised means nothing; what does mean something is keeping God’s commandments.” God’s commandment to the Israelites was that his people were to be circumcised. ​

​