JESUS   THE   MESSIAH

His Life and Times

No. 31

Home Page

The Three Sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes

Examination of their Distinctive Doctrines

Part 3

(To read the first two parts of this text, go to the Home Page above and then to the Archives of Previous Texts Page.)

We have already talked about the main differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the rest can be easily and briefly summed up.  They concern ceremonial, ritual, and juridical questions.  The opposition of the Sadducees to the excessive scruples of the Pharisees on the subject of Levitical defilements led to frequent controversy.  There are four points that are mentioned, but three of them don't seem like serious problems. 

The Sadducees were against the Pharisees' practice of touching the Golden Candlestick in the Temple.  They said that by touching anything sacred that it defiled the hands.  They held to the belief that touching the Scriptures defiled their hands, but not a book such as Homer.  In the same spirit, they would also ask the Pharisees why it was that pouring water from a clean into an unclean vessel did not lose its purity and purifying power. 

The above represent no serious controversies, but in another area they had serious controversies.  This really showed just how much power the Pharisees really had.  There was no other ceremony that was surrounded with more care to details than that of preparing the ashes of the Red Heifer.  The ordinances held that for seven days prior to the burning of the Red Heifer, the priest was to be kept from being touched by his brother-priests.  They went to even greater measures in this regard than the High-Priest preparing for the Day of Atonement. 

The Sadducees thought that to satisfy the rule of purification, the priest must be clean until sundown before burning the Red Heifer.  For the sake of opposition, though, and even in contradiction to their own principles, the Pharisees would actually defile the priest on his way to the place of burning, and then immediately make him take a bath of purification that had been prepared for him.  This was to show that the Sadducees were in error. 

There were many more of these distinctions that were made between the two groups.  Even though many of them could be considered trivial, they kept the passions kindled between the two.  There was even greater importance that was attached to their differences on ritual questions. 

When the Sadducees were in office, they had to always conform to the prevailing Pharisaic practices.  In many things they differed so much as to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum. 

On juridical questions, the Sadducees were extremely conservative and did not allow for any leeway whatsoever.  People probably sided with the Pharisees because at least they provided loopholes where one could be excused from doing something without actually committing a spiritual crime.  Josephus wrote that the Sadducees had extreme severity in criminal matters.  On the other hand, some of the juridical principles of the Sadducees seem to be more in line with actual justice than many of those of the Pharisees. 

According to the Sadducees, the punishment against false witnesses was only to be executed if the innocent person that was condemned on their testimony had actually suffered punishment.  The Pharisees held that this was to be done if the sentence had been actually pronounced, even though not carried out. 

Also, according to Jewish law, only a son could inherit his father's property.  The Pharisees argued that when the father died, if his son was dead also, then the granddaughter would be the heir of his estate and the daughter would be excluded.  The Sadducees felt that the mother and daughter should both share the estate. 

Josephus writes that the Pharisees commanded the masses, especially the female world, while the Sadducees only could claim a minority that belonged to the highest class.  This 'highest class' consisted partly of the leading priests in Jerusalem, and also the High-Priestly families.  We can certainly not conclude, though, that the Sadducees represented the civil and political aspect of society, and the Pharisees the religious. 

The derivation of the name Sadducee has always been in dispute.  According to a Jewish legend of the seventh century, the starting of their principles was derived from a man called Zadok who was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho.  His principle of not serving God for just the rewards it provided had been gradually misinterpreted into Sadduceeism.  Zadok had been the High-Priest in the time of Solomon.  It is thought that in later years, the Sadducees must have given their party this name because of what they thought were the principles that they stood for.  Otherwise, it would have probably been named after Zadok himself in some form.  The Pharisees would certainly not have picked this name because of Zadok being a revered High-Priest. 

The name Pharisee means 'separated one'.  It was not taken by the party itself, but was given to it by people that opposed them.  The Pharisees had originally taken the sacred name of Chasidim, or 'the pious'.  This must be on the ground that they thought of themselves as living according to the directions of Ezra.  They had separated themselves 'from the filthiness of the heathen' by carrying out the traditional ordinances of the law. 

While the Sadducees and Pharisees were parties within the Synagogue, the Essenes were strict Jews, but they separated themselves in doctrine, worship, and practice outside of the traditional Jewish body.  Their numbers amounted to only about 4,000.  They are not mentioned in the New Testament, but are referred to in Rabbinic writings.  Even the Rabbis did not know a lot about them because they were very secretive in what they believed and who they associated with. 

They separated themselves entirely from all who did not belong to their sect, and were bound by terrible oaths of secrecy about what they believed.  They took a vow and if they broke it, the rest of the sect could do terrible things to them in return.  This naturally prevented any free religious discussions about what they believed, as well as the character of what is known of their views. 

Josephus and Philo spoke of them in a very sympathetic manner, and it seems from their writings that they had tried hard to find out as much as they could about them.  We do know for sure, though, that John the Baptist, and his Baptism, nor the teaching of Christianity, had any connection with Essenism.  This could not have been possible because John preached repentance and the Kingdom of God to the people  and freely told them his beliefs in Jesus as the coming Messiah.  He freely baptized the people and told them about what would become Christianity in the near future.  The Essenes would never have done that.  Some believe that he was an Essene because he lived by himself in the desert for a time.  Also, the Essenes did not believe that Jesus ever arose again from the grave.

We have no knowledge for the history of the origin and development of Essenism.  There is a certain connection between them and the Pharisees, and both sects seem had to originated from a desire for 'purity', though each of them had a different idea of what that meant.  The Essene supposedly derived purity from separating himself from all material things, which he felt would distract him from obtaining a higher fellowship with the Divine;  while the Pharisee obtained  purity from obeying the many different man-made laws that had been made from the original Ten Commandments. 

The first mention of the Essenes is about 150 B.C., when we meet the first one in the reign of Aristobulus I (105 - 104 B.C.)  The Essenes had no vows of absolute silence, no penances, nor self-chastisement.  But the person who entered the order was as separated from the world as if he lived on another planet.  He avoided the large cities because they were centers of immorality. 

The Essenes chose for their settlements mainly small villages, with one of their largest colonies being by the shore of the Dead Sea.  At the same time, though, they had also 'houses' in most if not all the cities of Palestine, notably Jerusalem, where one of the gates was named after them.  In these 'houses', they lived under officials of their own.  Their affairs were administered by a tribunal of at least a hundred members.

They wore common dress, engaged in common labor, united in common prayers, partook of common meals, and devoted themselves to works of charity, for which each had liberty to draw from the common treasury at his own discretion, except in the case of relatives. 

They extended full hospitality to strangers that belonged to the order.  In fact, a special official was appointed for this purpose in every city.  Everything they owned was very simple and intended to purify the soul not only of what was sinful, but of what was material as well. 

They rose at dawn and did not speak a word until they had offered their prayers.  These were addressed to the rising son, or Divine Light, which they must have thought of as one in the same.  After the prayer, they were dismissed to common work.  The morning meal was preceded by a bath.  Then they put on their 'festive' linen garments which made them 'purified', and entered the common hall that was their Sanctuary. 

Each meal was considered sacrificial and was the only sacrifices of which they acknowledged.   The 'baker' was really their priest because he prepared the 'sacrifice', and he set before each of them bread and vegetables.  The meal began with prayer by the presiding priest, who was probably not of Aaronic descent.  Then the sacrificial meal was again concluded by prayer, and they took off their sacred dress and returned to their labor.  The evening meal was exactly the same thing, and was partaken of with the same rites as that of the morning meal.

The remainder of the traditions of the Essenes will be covered in the next text.

For more information from this book, go to the Archives Page at my site    www.cathydeaton.com      There are other articles of interest there also.

This text is taken from the book Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah written by Alfred Edersheim.  Permission has been given to use this book.