Was Peter a Pharisee?

[Swordman]

I thought I would throw this question out for discussion. It is based on some research I have been doing on Peter and his role in the church for a project I am involved in.

When I presented this question in my church, I got a very negative response. However, I think there is evidence that he might be.

To answer this, I want you to focus on the Acts of the apostles and (perhaps) Peter's letters. The reason for this is that these depict both Pharisees and Peter in a post-resurrection setting.

If you really want to do a deep dive, check out the following books.

E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016). This contains a good summary of Pharisaic beliefs.
Joseph Sievers and Amy-Jill Levine, eds., The Pharisees (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021. This is a series of essays by various authors.

Or just read how the Pharisees operate in the book of Acts.

Have at it. I will chime in as I find time. We will see who are the brave around here.

 

[Frank Russell]

Based on his conformist attitude he might have been a Sadducee. The instance that comes to mind is when Paul calls him out on his hypocrisy of not living like a Jew but then insisting gentiles get circumcised.

Pharisees were the synagogue faction, and the Sadducees were the temple faction. So the rub here may have been their preferences on how to "do church" . in this case Paul had a wider vision of what it would look like compared to Peter who just wanted to chill with the Jews in Jerusalem like a temple boy would.

 

[Fred]

I would think that based on Acts 4:13 he was not a Pharisee.

 

[civic]

I would think that based on Acts 4:13 he was not a Pharisee.

I would agree they were just ordinary Jewish boys that ere unlearned fisherman. The pharisees like Paul were learned men which Peter alludes to in 2 Peter 3 where he says Paul's writing are hard for the unlearned to understand. Jesus used the simple to confound the wise. The foolish in the worlds eyes or in the eyes of the Pharisees/Sadducees.

 

[Fred]

I would agree they were just ordinary Jewish boys that ere unlearned fisherman. The pharisees like Paul were learned men which Peter alludes to in 2 Peter 3 where he says Paul's writing are hard for the unlearned to understand. Jesus used the simple to confound the wise. The foolish in the worlds eyes or in the eyes of the Pharisees/Sadducees.

I also believe Peter grew in the knowledge of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Peter 3:18).

Every Christian should as well for the glory of God.

 

[civic]

I also believe Peter grew in the knowledge of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Peter 3:18).

Every Christian should as well for the glory of God.

Agreed

 

[jeremiah1five]

I thought I would throw this question out for discussion. It is based on some research I have been doing on Peter and his role in the church for a project I am involved in.

When I presented this question in my church, I got a very negative response. However, I think there is evidence that he might be.

To answer this, I want you to focus on the Acts of the apostles and (perhaps) Peter's letters. The reason for this is that these depict both Pharisees and Peter in a post-resurrection setting.

If you really want to do a deep dive, check out the following books.

E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016). This contains a good summary of Pharisaic beliefs.
Joseph Sievers and Amy-Jill Levine, eds., The Pharisees (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021. This is a series of essays by various authors.

Or just read how the Pharisees operate in the book of Acts.

Have at it. I will chime in as I find time. We will see who are the brave around here.

Peter was an obedient observer of the Torah, as were all the disciples and Jesus Christ.

Peter was a fisherman. He was not a Pharisee nor was he associated with the religious leaders of his day.

 

[Bubba]

Those were my first thoughts that he was a fisherman. And Jesus made him a fisher of men. I know one thing for sure and that's the Jesus wasn't real fond of the Pharisees. Jesus called these Pharisees a "brood of vipers" because of the wickedness in their hearts because the heart is what matters to Jesus.

So I certainly hope Peter didn't become one.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Those were my first thoughts that he was a fisherman. And Jesus made him a fisher of men. I know one thing for sure and that's the Jesus wasn't real fond of the Pharisees. Jesus called these Pharisees a "brood of vipers" because of the wickedness in their hearts because the heart is what matters to Jesus.

So I certainly hope Peter didn't become one.

A very interesting thing about it was Jesus was a Rabbi. His teachings more aligned with the Pharisees and not the Sadducees.
That's why they're sad, you see.

The proverbial "heart" is only that: a "heart." It pumps blood and that's all. God ordained the mind for thinking and such. Salvation occurs in the mind, not the heart. In the OT the "heart" represented the 'whole being of a person.' It's like saying, "Oh, that poor soul," meaning, the whole person not just the soul.
But "heart" did not translate well into the English when translations were being published. Today, many ignorant Christians ask "accept Jesus into your heart" which is a pluralistic misnomer. Jesus never enters a person's "heart." He's at the right hand of the Father and when He ascended has never come back to occupy a person's heart even if they become born-again. He will return one more time and boy is He pissed at Gentile Christians for taking all that is Christ and pissing all over it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Peter was an obedient observer of the Torah, as were all the disciples and Jesus Christ.

Peter was a fisherman. He was not a Pharisee nor was he associated with the religious leaders of his day.

Jesus referenced Peter as Satan and his mother sought for her sons to rule Israel. Peter ignored his own hypocrisies and abandoned Gentiles for many years till Jesus had to remind him once again that He had forgiven all men in Christ. He was part of the problem in the church at Jerusalem have no concern for those not like them.

I'm no better than Peter and in many ways worse. However, to claim he was obedient is ridiculous.

Most every man struggles to control others. Peter was no different.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A very interesting thing about it was Jesus was a Rabbi. His teachings more aligned with the Pharisees and not the Sadducees.
That's why they're sad, you see.

The proverbial "heart" is only that: a "heart." It pumps blood and that's all. God ordained the mind for thinking and such. Salvation occurs in the mind, not the heart. In the OT the "heart" represented the 'whole being of a person.' It's like saying, "Oh, that poor soul," meaning, the whole person not just the soul.
But "heart" did not translate well into the English when translations were being published. Today, many ignorant Christians ask "accept Jesus into your heart" which is a pluralistic misnomer. Jesus never enters a person's "heart." He's at the right hand of the Father and when He ascended has never come back to occupy a person's heart even if they become born-again. He will return one more time and boy is He pissed at Gentile Christians for taking all that is Christ and pissing all over it.

You're full of hate and bitterness. I'm so glad Jesus didn't act like you.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Jesus referenced Peter as Satan and his mother sought for her sons to rule Israel. Peter ignored his own hypocrisies and abandoned Gentiles for many years till Jesus had to remind him once again that He had forgiven all men in Christ. He was part of the problem in the church at Jerusalem have no concern for those not like them.

I'm no better than Peter and in many ways worse. However, to claim he was obedient is ridiculous.

Most every man struggles to control others. Peter was no different.

So, Jesus called out to be His disciples reprobates? Disobedient to God? Jesus called out Jews who were disobedient to God as His disciples?
Funny.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You're full of hate and bitterness. I'm so glad Jesus didn't act like you.

Just wait until He returns. Do you want to see Jesus destroy with extreme prejudice then wait until He comes if you are alive to see it. You're going to be in great fear and ask the rocks to hide you from the face of the One who comes in the Name of the LORD!

 

[Swordman]

So, now that I have completed a project I was on, let me comment.

This question about Peter being a Pharisee is one I have been contemplating for some time now. Of course, much of this is somewhat speculative, but it is so based on my reading of the text of Scripture. I am assuming the content of the Acts to be a true representation of events and ideas of the early church.

I would not suggest Peter was a Pharisaic teacher, although his sermons at the beginning of Acts reveal a bit of knowledge of Jewish scriptures and most Pharisees were laypersons. The question really revolves around Jewish beliefs and practices. In Acts 10:14, in his vision of the unclean animals, Peter responds, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.”

This is a rather unusual statement for a Galilean, where Jews (Judeans) would probably see everyone as unclean (by Temple standards) simply due to the necessities of life. But Peter does seem to affirm some level of ritualistic purity that would be common to Pharisees. He also affirms the resurrection, which Pharisees would affirm.

However, Pharisees are not all the same. There is no monolithic checklist that defines Pharisees. In general, they held to the resurrection, believed in purity of practice (measured against Temple purity), and, per Josephus, were known to be lenient in judgment.

Even after his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul remained a Pharisee and there were Pharisees in the church.

Peter is commonly seen as being contrary to Paul's view of Gentile inclusion, but this is not the case in Acts 15. It is Peter who gives voice to Paul's argument before the council.

I would suggest that both Peter and Paul are Pharisees of a similar type. All Jews had to deal with the issue of Gentile acceptance of the Messiah, and Peter set the precedent with Cornelius. That the Pharisees raise the issue of circumcision at the council in Acts 15 may be giving voice to a common Judean perspective that needed to be dealt with once and for all.

I am also wondering if Peter is the ultimate source of Paul's belief that Gentiles are saved through faith just as the Jews were.

The presence of Pharisees in the church and the support of people like the Gamaliel and the Pharisees in Paul's trial, suggests that there is some overlap in the beliefs and the Pharisees were friendlier to the Christ-followers than we often consider.

Of course, there is no explicit statement by Peter or of Peter that would allow us to state with 100% accuracy that he was a Pharisee. But there are some pointers that we should take into account in evaluating his belief system. If he is one, he would, like Paul, be a Messianic Pharisee who has faith in Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So, Jesus called out to be His disciples reprobates? Disobedient to God? Jesus called out Jews who were disobedient to God as His disciples?
Funny.

I believe what I read. You're mocking God.

Yes. God calls sinners.

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Just wait until He returns. Do you want to see Jesus destroy with extreme prejudice then wait until He comes if you are alive to see it. You're going to be in great fear and ask the rocks to hide you from the face of the One who comes in the Name of the LORD!

Good think you're not the judge of anyone. You'd have them all in hell but yourself.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I believe what I read. You're mocking God.

Yes. God calls sinners.

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

NONE of the Jews were sinners. They had the animal sacrifices that covered them yearly until the True Lamb came.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Good think you're not the judge of anyone. You'd have them all in hell but yourself.

I'm slated to judge the angels.
Get thee behind me!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Was Peter a Pharisee?​

Doubtful - We know he was a fisherman, and that he tended to speak before thinking.