In His adult life, Jesus of Nazareth was embroiled in conflict and yet understood the ominous
potential of conflict. When the scribes 1 accused Him of only being able to exorcise a demon-possessed
person because the prince of demons possessed Him, He stated, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a
kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against
itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not
able to stand and his end has come.” 2 Jesus was stating that He could not be demonic and at the
same time destroy the demonic forces.
Likewise, a family, an organization, or a kingdom is unable to continually to fight against itself and
endure because its members will either be so wounded that they are unable to function or they will
leave. Either way, the organization will be unable to carry out its mission. The resources of the
organization will be, in effect, used up by the conflict. 3 At the same time, when Jesus of Nazareth sent
His twelve apostles to proclaim His message about the kingdom of heaven, He stated, ““Do not think
that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have
come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” 4
Jesus’ point was that communicated ideas can bring transformation and conflict – transformation for
the person who embraces the idea and conflict to the person who rejects the idea – even in the
intermediate family. The same GOD-man who proclaims “love your enemy” also used communication as
a way to purposefully stir up conflict as a means to provoke people to a greater level of spirituality.
The aim of this paper is to challenge the concept that conflict is something to avoid or prevent.
Rather, conflict is “the voice of a new paradigm” and “a demand for change in a system that has
outlived its usefulness.” 5 Although conflict can be divisive and dangerous, it can also be
transformative. I will examine two communications between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees 6
applying the theories and principles of communication and conflict as learned during the course and
expounded on in the textbooks in light of the cultural context of the communication. Throughout the
paper, I will refer to the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, early rabbinical writings found in
the Talmud, the New Testament, and modern scholarly thought. The purpose of the paper is not to
demonstrate a grasp of the link between communication and conflict in a practical way (such as a
teaching guide that can be used) but through critical theoretical application.
Contextual Dynamic of Communication
The Pharisees are one of the two most well-known Jewish sects from the time of Jesus of Nazareth
(the other being the Sadducees). It is impossible to understand the conflict between Jesus of Nazareth
and the Pharisees without understanding the context of their communications with each other. To
some extent, both parties opposed each other. In fact, Jesus’ opposition to the Pharisees is
highlighted in His condemnation of them at times.
The conflicts between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees took place in the context of much broader
conflicts among Jews in the Second Temple era. One conflict was a socio-economic conflict between the
wealthy and the poor. Another conflict was a cultural conflict between Jews who favored hellenization
(assimilation to Greek culture) like the Sadducees (who at least had no problems with Hellenic culture)
and those who resisted it like the Pharisees and those who were concerned with heavenly citizenship
like Jesus of Nazareth. A third was a juridico-religious conflict between those who emphasized the
importance of the Temple such as the Sadducees, those who emphasized the importance of other
Mosaic laws and prophetic values such as the Pharisees, and those who emphasized a universal
spirituality like Jesus of Nazareth. A fourth conflict was a theological conflict that involved how the
Hebrew Bible should be interpreted and applied to daily Jewish life. 7 Fundamentally, Jesus of Nazareth
and the Pharisees took clearly opposing positions concerning the third and fourth conflicts, but at
different times were influenced by the other conflicts. In general, whereas the Pharisees were eclectic,
popular, and more democratic, Jesus of Nazareth was fundamentalist and universalist and yet exclusivist.
Examination of Two Dialogues
People will differ also on traditions and values, which can give rise to conflict and, if so, it may seem
impossible to resolve to anyone’s satisfaction at times. 8 An individual’s identity is often wrapped up in
traditions and values as is the case with both Jesus of Nazareth who saw Himself as the long-awaited
Jewish Messiah and Savior of all people and the Pharisees who saw themselves as holy men called to
promote holiness. Infringing on those values becomes a personal attack which must be defended at all
costs.8 Often when Jesus of Nazareth was confronted on issues, He would counter by confronting
many of the Jewish leaders’ on their traditions which He felt were in direct contradiction of GOD’s laws.
Jesus’ response of defensiveness and counteraccusation is a typical reaction by a person who is initially
stereotyped, accused, or attacked. These confrontations between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees
were ultimately over right standing before and with GOD. Hence, to a degree, their interests were the
same. The commonality between the parties was their agreement that the Torah 9 and the Hebrew
Bible is the measuring rod for right standing before and with GOD. On the surface though, the conflict
played out in episodic disagreement over ceremonial washing, appropriate associations for the faithful,
and rest on the Sabbath.
The dimensions of the communications between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees as examined in
this paper seem to remain at the two-dimensional and three-dimensional levels because both parties
exhibit positions and interests in the communication. The dialogues between Jesus of Nazareth and the
Pharisees about ritual purity and ceremonial washing were the most intense, which is not surprising
considering the purpose of Jesus’ ministry and the history of the Pharisees. The first specific mention
of the Pharisees is during the reign of John Hyrcanus 10 (134-104 BCE). The scant evidence available
suggests that they arose as a distinct group soon after the Maccabean revolt.
It is likely that the Pharisees arose from the Hasidim (Hebrew “the pious ones”), a Jewish movement
that formed in the time of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes (175 - 163 BC) to fight against the
Hellenizing forces in the Maccabean 11 revolt. Regarding the factors that led to the establishment of the
Pharisees as a distinct party, British historian Paul Johnson writes: “In their battle against Greek
education, pious Jews began, from the end of the second century BC, to develop a national system of
education.
To the old scribal schools were gradually added a network of local schools where, in theory at least,
all Jewish boys were taught the Torah. This development was of great importance in the spread and
consolidation of the synagogue, in the birth of Pharisaism as a movement rooted in popular education,
and eventually in the rise of the rabbinate.” 12 Similarly, Elias Bickerman writes in his history of the
Hasmonean 13 dynasty that “[t]he Pharisees…wished to embrace the whole people, and in particular
through education. It was their desire and intention that everyone in Israel achieves holiness through
the study of the Torah…” 14 Hence, any dialogue with or by the Pharisees on ceremonial washing or
ritual purity is a dialogue about identity, values, and history because ceremonial washing and ritual
purity are outward manifestations of their goal of personal and national holiness.
In an exchange about ceremonial washing, Jesus of Nazareth directly questions the validity of the
Pharisees’ ceremonial washing in Mark 7:1-15: Now the Pharisees and some of the experts in the law who came from
Jerusalem gathered to him. And they saw that some of Jesus’ disciples ate their bread with unclean hands, that is,
unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they perform a ritual washing, holding on to the
tradition of the elders. And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. They hold on to
many other traditions: the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and dining couches.)
The Pharisees and the experts in the law asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the
elders, but eat with unwashed hands?” Jesus said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is
written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as
doctrine the commandments of men.’ Having no regard for the command of God, you hold on to human tradition.” Jesus
also said to them, “You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor
your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if
anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God),
then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition
that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.” Then Jesus called the crowd again and said to them,
“Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him.
Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”
On the surface, the dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus on Nazareth is about ceremonial
washing. The Pharisees’ position is that Jesus and His disciples should wash their hands before they eat
to be ritually pure before GOD. Jesus’ position is that washing hands before eating is insignificant
because GOD is concerned with inner purity. At this level, it is arguable that no conflict really exists but
simply opposing positions are being held. 15 However, Jesus of Nazareth takes the issue to a deeper
level. For Him, the issue is more than ceremonial washing but is an example of the error in Pharisaic
theology, that is, the oral Torah is equivalent to the written law if not superior. Flavius Josephus
records that the Pharisees were meticulous about observing the written Torah (the written law given to
Moses) and the oral Torah (oral law that GOD taught Moses which the elders interpret to better
understand the written Torah). 16 Hence, obedience of the oral Torah, which provides for further ritual
purity laws not found in the written Torah, is obedience to GOD but Jesus of Nazareth sees it as the
traditions of men, thus, not divine and legalistic burdens.
potential of conflict. When the scribes 1 accused Him of only being able to exorcise a demon-possessed
person because the prince of demons possessed Him, He stated, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a
kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against
itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not
able to stand and his end has come.” 2 Jesus was stating that He could not be demonic and at the
same time destroy the demonic forces.
Likewise, a family, an organization, or a kingdom is unable to continually to fight against itself and
endure because its members will either be so wounded that they are unable to function or they will
leave. Either way, the organization will be unable to carry out its mission. The resources of the
organization will be, in effect, used up by the conflict. 3 At the same time, when Jesus of Nazareth sent
His twelve apostles to proclaim His message about the kingdom of heaven, He stated, ““Do not think
that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have
come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” 4
Jesus’ point was that communicated ideas can bring transformation and conflict – transformation for
the person who embraces the idea and conflict to the person who rejects the idea – even in the
intermediate family. The same GOD-man who proclaims “love your enemy” also used communication as
a way to purposefully stir up conflict as a means to provoke people to a greater level of spirituality.
The aim of this paper is to challenge the concept that conflict is something to avoid or prevent.
Rather, conflict is “the voice of a new paradigm” and “a demand for change in a system that has
outlived its usefulness.” 5 Although conflict can be divisive and dangerous, it can also be
transformative. I will examine two communications between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees 6
applying the theories and principles of communication and conflict as learned during the course and
expounded on in the textbooks in light of the cultural context of the communication. Throughout the
paper, I will refer to the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, early rabbinical writings found in
the Talmud, the New Testament, and modern scholarly thought. The purpose of the paper is not to
demonstrate a grasp of the link between communication and conflict in a practical way (such as a
teaching guide that can be used) but through critical theoretical application.
Contextual Dynamic of Communication
The Pharisees are one of the two most well-known Jewish sects from the time of Jesus of Nazareth
(the other being the Sadducees). It is impossible to understand the conflict between Jesus of Nazareth
and the Pharisees without understanding the context of their communications with each other. To
some extent, both parties opposed each other. In fact, Jesus’ opposition to the Pharisees is
highlighted in His condemnation of them at times.
The conflicts between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees took place in the context of much broader
conflicts among Jews in the Second Temple era. One conflict was a socio-economic conflict between the
wealthy and the poor. Another conflict was a cultural conflict between Jews who favored hellenization
(assimilation to Greek culture) like the Sadducees (who at least had no problems with Hellenic culture)
and those who resisted it like the Pharisees and those who were concerned with heavenly citizenship
like Jesus of Nazareth. A third was a juridico-religious conflict between those who emphasized the
importance of the Temple such as the Sadducees, those who emphasized the importance of other
Mosaic laws and prophetic values such as the Pharisees, and those who emphasized a universal
spirituality like Jesus of Nazareth. A fourth conflict was a theological conflict that involved how the
Hebrew Bible should be interpreted and applied to daily Jewish life. 7 Fundamentally, Jesus of Nazareth
and the Pharisees took clearly opposing positions concerning the third and fourth conflicts, but at
different times were influenced by the other conflicts. In general, whereas the Pharisees were eclectic,
popular, and more democratic, Jesus of Nazareth was fundamentalist and universalist and yet exclusivist.
Examination of Two Dialogues
People will differ also on traditions and values, which can give rise to conflict and, if so, it may seem
impossible to resolve to anyone’s satisfaction at times. 8 An individual’s identity is often wrapped up in
traditions and values as is the case with both Jesus of Nazareth who saw Himself as the long-awaited
Jewish Messiah and Savior of all people and the Pharisees who saw themselves as holy men called to
promote holiness. Infringing on those values becomes a personal attack which must be defended at all
costs.8 Often when Jesus of Nazareth was confronted on issues, He would counter by confronting
many of the Jewish leaders’ on their traditions which He felt were in direct contradiction of GOD’s laws.
Jesus’ response of defensiveness and counteraccusation is a typical reaction by a person who is initially
stereotyped, accused, or attacked. These confrontations between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees
were ultimately over right standing before and with GOD. Hence, to a degree, their interests were the
same. The commonality between the parties was their agreement that the Torah 9 and the Hebrew
Bible is the measuring rod for right standing before and with GOD. On the surface though, the conflict
played out in episodic disagreement over ceremonial washing, appropriate associations for the faithful,
and rest on the Sabbath.
The dimensions of the communications between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees as examined in
this paper seem to remain at the two-dimensional and three-dimensional levels because both parties
exhibit positions and interests in the communication. The dialogues between Jesus of Nazareth and the
Pharisees about ritual purity and ceremonial washing were the most intense, which is not surprising
considering the purpose of Jesus’ ministry and the history of the Pharisees. The first specific mention
of the Pharisees is during the reign of John Hyrcanus 10 (134-104 BCE). The scant evidence available
suggests that they arose as a distinct group soon after the Maccabean revolt.
It is likely that the Pharisees arose from the Hasidim (Hebrew “the pious ones”), a Jewish movement
that formed in the time of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes (175 - 163 BC) to fight against the
Hellenizing forces in the Maccabean 11 revolt. Regarding the factors that led to the establishment of the
Pharisees as a distinct party, British historian Paul Johnson writes: “In their battle against Greek
education, pious Jews began, from the end of the second century BC, to develop a national system of
education.
To the old scribal schools were gradually added a network of local schools where, in theory at least,
all Jewish boys were taught the Torah. This development was of great importance in the spread and
consolidation of the synagogue, in the birth of Pharisaism as a movement rooted in popular education,
and eventually in the rise of the rabbinate.” 12 Similarly, Elias Bickerman writes in his history of the
Hasmonean 13 dynasty that “[t]he Pharisees…wished to embrace the whole people, and in particular
through education. It was their desire and intention that everyone in Israel achieves holiness through
the study of the Torah…” 14 Hence, any dialogue with or by the Pharisees on ceremonial washing or
ritual purity is a dialogue about identity, values, and history because ceremonial washing and ritual
purity are outward manifestations of their goal of personal and national holiness.
In an exchange about ceremonial washing, Jesus of Nazareth directly questions the validity of the
Pharisees’ ceremonial washing in Mark 7:1-15: Now the Pharisees and some of the experts in the law who came from
Jerusalem gathered to him. And they saw that some of Jesus’ disciples ate their bread with unclean hands, that is,
unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they perform a ritual washing, holding on to the
tradition of the elders. And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. They hold on to
many other traditions: the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and dining couches.)
The Pharisees and the experts in the law asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the
elders, but eat with unwashed hands?” Jesus said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is
written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as
doctrine the commandments of men.’ Having no regard for the command of God, you hold on to human tradition.” Jesus
also said to them, “You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor
your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if
anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God),
then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition
that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.” Then Jesus called the crowd again and said to them,
“Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him.
Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”
On the surface, the dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus on Nazareth is about ceremonial
washing. The Pharisees’ position is that Jesus and His disciples should wash their hands before they eat
to be ritually pure before GOD. Jesus’ position is that washing hands before eating is insignificant
because GOD is concerned with inner purity. At this level, it is arguable that no conflict really exists but
simply opposing positions are being held. 15 However, Jesus of Nazareth takes the issue to a deeper
level. For Him, the issue is more than ceremonial washing but is an example of the error in Pharisaic
theology, that is, the oral Torah is equivalent to the written law if not superior. Flavius Josephus
records that the Pharisees were meticulous about observing the written Torah (the written law given to
Moses) and the oral Torah (oral law that GOD taught Moses which the elders interpret to better
understand the written Torah). 16 Hence, obedience of the oral Torah, which provides for further ritual
purity laws not found in the written Torah, is obedience to GOD but Jesus of Nazareth sees it as the
traditions of men, thus, not divine and legalistic burdens.
| Home Editorial Board Letter from Editor Submission Guidelines Contributors Neutral Practice Contact Us |
| © Copyright 2006 Settle It Now! Dispute Resolution Services |
What Would Jesus Do?
An Analysis of Communications between Jesus of
Nazareth and the Pharisees of First-Century Israel
by Troy Anthony Thomas
An Analysis of Communications between Jesus of
Nazareth and the Pharisees of First-Century Israel
by Troy Anthony Thomas
next page