Comparing the 3 Prominant Religious Sects of Judaism

During the time of the New Testament, there were three major religious and political sects of Judaism. They were the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. Two key issues defined each of these groups: religious philosophy and practice, and social and political philosophy.

First, let us look at their religious philosophy and practice. The Sadducees were generally men associated with the priesthood probably as a carry over from their association with the priestly Hasmonean rulers.¹ However, Scott says, “it must not be assumed that all Sadducees were priest nor that all priest were Saducees.”² They did control the operations of the Temple. Their authoritative source for religious philosophy and practice was the Old Testament law. They rejected the oral law of the Pharisees in favor of the written law of the Old Testament. Scott says, “The Sadducees were conservative and literalistic in handling the Old Testament law as they resisted the new ideas and traditions of the Pharisees.”³ Like the Sadducees, the Essenes rejected the oral law of the Pharisees and sought the purity of the Levitical law. The Pharisees, in attempt to interpret and understand the practice of the Old Testament law, added what has already been referred to as the oral law or what Mark refers to as, “the traditions of the elders” (Mark 7:3). The Sadducees differed from the Pharisees in philosophy about how ceremonial rituals that were carried out, while the Essenes rejected ceremonial worship at the temple altogether because the priests were not from the lineage of Zadok.⁴ Scott says of the Essenes, “Their interpretation and practice of the law were more strict than any other known Jewish group.” ⁵ The New Testament gives us insight into the different philosophies that the Pharisees and Sadducees held relative to the spirit world. Acts 23:8 says, “(the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all).”⁷ The Essenes also believed in the immortality of the soul, and were completely fatalistic.⁸ They were all similar in that they all held the written law in high regard, but they differed in how it was to be interpreted which lead to the oral law of the Pharisees of which, again, both the Sadducees and Essenes rejected.

While the differences in religious philosophy and practice are complicated, the social and political philosophies are relatively simple. The Sadducees were people who were open to Hellenism and the Roman political system.⁹ It is easy to see how they are sympathizers to Rome, which cannot be said of the Pharisees and the Essenes. Both the Pharisees and the Essenes rejected Roman rule and Hellenization (Greek culture). The difference between the two groups is how they functioned in a society ruled by Rome and increasingly influenced by Hellenism. The Pharisees generally took a peaceful approach while living amongst the Jewish populous. They sought to influence the people primarily through the Synagogues, while the Essenes lived a more monastic life separating themselves from the world.

I agree with the fatalistic leanings of the Essenes. God is completely sovereign and in control of all things. I also sympathize with their commitment to live a life totally devoted to God through their obedience to His Word. Jesus Himself said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.”¹⁰ This is how we express our love to Christ! I do not agree with their isolationist approach to living, especially in light of the great commission. I appreciate the approach of the Pharisees to influence the people back toward obedience instead of isolating themselves; however, I reject their legalistic outcomes due to their adding to the Scriptures. Their “obedience” was to gain their own righteousness not as an expression of love toward God. I also appreciate the Sadducees conservative interpretation methods of the written law, yet I reject their beliefs about the non-existence of the spirit world and their lack of belief in the resurrection of the dead. I agree with Paul, that if I did not believe in the resurrection of Christ, you all should just pity me right now! This is an essential basis of the hope that we have in Christ! Additionally, one cannot read any of the New Testament books and reject the existence of the spirit world.

¹ J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 207.

² J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 208.

³ J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 208.

⁴ J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 217.

⁵ J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 216.

⁶ J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 208.

⁷ The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible: New International Version, 1239.

⁸ J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 217.

⁹ J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Background of the New Testament, 208.

¹⁰ The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible: New International Version, John 14:15, 1197.