What Would Jesus Do?
(con't)
(con't)
The Pharisees also wanted to address the deeper issue but somewhat hid the deeper issue in their
structuring of the question posed to Jesus of Nazareth. The form of communication can lead to
conflict even though communicative form is often not thought about when a person speaks. The
Pharisees structured the question in a way that made it seem as if the issue was an episodic
disagreement, that is, Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples were not living according to the oral Torah
by not washing their hands before they ate. However, their real issue is on the juridical-religious
level – not with just that one episode. The question’s structure is evidence of the Pharisees’ conflict
management style on this occasion.
Everyone has a conflict management style, whether a conscious approach or an unconscious
reaction. The way a person responds to a conflict defines the person’s style. Some people are able
to vary their approach, that is, change their style depending on the situation or the people involved.
Yet, most people usually use one style in most situations. People will range in style from avoidance
or accommodation to compromise or competition to collaboration. Here, the Pharisees came off
accommodating, that is, they wanted to address the deeper issue without being explicit about it
(possibly to not appear openly offensive). In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth took the issue to a deeper
level when He did not simply answer their question directly but attacked the Pharisees’ view on the
oral Torah, which He felt was no more than the traditions of men. Notice that Jesus of Nazareth
begins with a scriptural attack on the Pharisees’ relationship with GOD (their heart is far from GOD)
and their theology (they are vain worshippers and disregarders and rejecters of the written Torah
because they teach and hold on to the oral Torah). Secondly, Jesus of Nazareth implicitly judges the
Pharisees according to the principle of a breaker of one aspect of the law is a breaker of all the law.
Jesus of Nazareth alludes to what He perceives to be an example of the Pharisees using the oral
Torah (“corban”) 17 as a means to free themselves from what He sees as the obvious obligations of
the written Torah (“Honor your father and mother” 18; “Whoever insults his father or mother must
be put to death” 19).
The interest behind both issues – whether it is ceremonial washing or the weight of the oral Torah –
is holiness. As explained earlier, the Pharisees arose out of the Hakamic movement that promoted
holiness for all people. Jesus of Nazareth was also a promoter of holiness for all people –
admonishing His disciples to be perfect for their heavenly Father is perfect and seen in the dialogue
with His concern about defilement. The importance of the dialogue is how holiness should be
promoted and achieved. It could also be said that the interest behind both the Pharisees and Jesus’
positions at both levels is really righteousness, that is, right standing with and before GOD because
holiness is only a means or result of righteousness (depending on the starting point). The
Pharisees’ and Jesus’ starting points are different. The Pharisees starting point is that
righteousness is the result of obeying the written Torah and the oral Torah. Jesus’ starting point is
that righteousness is the result of not obedience to the written or oral Torah but faith which is the
product of GOD’s grace to people. This type of conflict can be intractable because it involves
traditions and values and the identity of the people found therein.
A situation of this magnitude is only amplified when not only is the tradition and value attacked but
the person holding the tradition and value is attacked. Such is the case with both the Pharisees who
imply that Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples are not acceptable to GOD because they are ritually
unclean since they did not ceremonially wash their hands and with Jesus of Nazareth who calls the
Pharisees “hypocrites” and violators of the written law given to Moses. Concerning Jesus’ personal
attacks on the Pharisees, Louis Feldman writes, “But when Jesus refers to Pharisees as ‘hypocrites’
(Matthew 23:13) and a ‘brood of vipers’ (Matthew 23:33), he is berating fellow Jews. Jesus
undoubtedly regards his violent language as following the tradition of the prophets when they
castigated fellow Jews of their day. In other words, it is a family quarrel. Jesus looks upon himself as
continuing the Jewish tradition of self-criticism.” 20 If Louis Feldman is correct, then the conflict
between the Pharisees and Jesus of Nazareth was cultural (a product of a religious and ethnic culture
that encouraged debate) and of the type that should not be mediated unless possibly the mediation
is to bring understanding and tolerance of each other’s perspectives.
The conflicts between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees were not limited to the issue of the
authority of the oral Torah but also involved how the written Torah should be interpreted and
applied to everyday Jewish life. In Mark 2:23-28, the Pharisees and Jesus of Nazareth have a
discourse about the scope of the commandment to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy:
Unlike the question that the Pharisees posed to Jesus of Nazareth about ceremonial washing, the
Pharisees asked Jesus of Nazareth explicitly about his understanding of the Sabbath
commandment. Not only do the Pharisees change their approach but Jesus of Nazareth also
changes his conflict management style. Although Jesus of Nazareth varied the style of His answer,
His conflict management style is still that of a competitor, which is not surprising because both the
Pharisees and Jesus of Nazareth were fighting over the minds and hearts of the people and for both
it was (spiritually) a life and death situation. Notice that Jesus of Nazareth responds to the charge
that what His disciples were doing was against the law with an analogy: “If David did it for his troops
in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.”
Hence, Jesus admits implicitly that it would appear that His disciples and He are committing a
violation but greater insight into their situation shows that no violation exists either because a
“greater need” (their hunger) makes their action permissible or this type of action was always within
the intention of the law (the Sabbath is made for people).
Also, Jesus of Nazareth counters that He is the Son of Man (a title that designates the Jewish
Messiah) who created the Sabbath for people and, thus, can define what does and does not violate
the Sabbath. Unlike the first counter which is a reference to the Hebrew Bible and could prove
persuasive to the Pharisees, Jesus of Nazareth claiming to not only be the Messiah but also GOD
(lord of the Sabbath) is blasphemous at least to this group of Pharisees since some Pharisees did
follow Jesus of Nazareth. It would seem that Jesus of Nazareth purposefully escalated the conflict to
an impasse because the Pharisees might have bought His first counter. Looking at the objects used
in phrasing gives great insight into the emotional level of each party.
The Pharisees start out asking “why are they…” The word “they” in a negative context exhibits a
sense of stereotyping or prejudgment. No doubt Jesus of Nazareth felt prejudged. He responds
with “have you never read…” which is a negation. The word “you” when used in a response implies
that the speaker is defensive and counter-accusing the initial speaker,8 which is exactly what
happened. The Pharisees prejudge that Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples are violating the
Sabbath commandment and Jesus of Nazareth responds by defending that His disciples and He are
not violating the commandment but rather the Pharisees have no true understanding of the written
Torah.
In contrast to how Jesus of Nazareth dealt with the Pharisees and the problem presented before
Him, He was hard on the problem but soft on the people. In this dialogue, He never personally
attacks the Pharisees but challenges their interpretation of the written Torah in light of other
passages in the Hebrew Bible. He also claimed to be the GOD-Messiah and, though that may have
escalated the conflict in that the Pharisees probably found the claim blasphemous, it was not a
personal attack. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth was hard on the problem by explaining that He was not
violating the Sabbath command of the written Torah from His understanding of the command in light
of the entire Hebrew Bible. He was soft on the people by simply provoking their exegesis of the
written Torah.
As mentioned before, the environmental context of the communications between the Pharisees and
Jesus of Nazareth was a religious and ethnic culture that encouraged debate. Yet, the parties may
understand or use the environmental context of communication differently. The Pharisees, as stated
before, were eclectic meaning that they believed that a greater understanding of the written Torah is
achieved with various interpretations of the Torah. In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth was
fundamentalist meaning that He believed that He Himself was the ultimate revelation of GOD’s truth.
So, it could be that the Pharisees often confronted Jesus of Nazareth about His disregard of the oral
Torah and sometimes what appeared to be a violation of the written Torah to get Jesus’ stance on
positions that the Pharisees’ already hold. Yet, Jesus used the process not for debating purposes
but as a preaching forum per se.
The conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees is a conflict between religious leaders. It is
clear that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious leader because He had followers, disciples, and apostles.
Also, many would approach Him calling Him “Master” and “Rabbi.” The vast majority of the scribes
were Pharisees and many Pharisees were priests. Also, the Pharisees regulated the synagogues,
teaching, and interpreting the written Torah and oral Torah. Although the Pharisees never
constituted a majority 21, most Jewish people, though most were non-sectarian, looked up to the
Pharisees as examples of godliness. 22 Therefore, an attack on Jesus of Nazareth and/or His
disciples or an attack on the Pharisees was an implicit attack on the status of both parties. As seen
in the two dialogues examined, the Pharisees’ attack on what they perceived was Jesus’ violation of
their oral Torah or the written Torah was possibly inquiry but Jesus’ attacks on the Pharisees was a
total disregard of their interpretation and application of the written Torah and acceptance of the oral
Torah. The Pharisees were solidly devoted to the daily application and observance of the written law
given to Moses and the oral Torah. Paul Johnson, in describing the Pharisees’ oral Torah, writes:
“They followed ancient traditions inspired by an obscure text in Deuteronomy, ‘put it in their
mouths’, that God had given Moses, in addition to the written Law, an Oral Law, by which learned
elders could interpret and supplement the sacred commands. The practice of the Oral Law made it
possible for the Mosaic code to be adapted to changing conditions and administered in a realistic
manner.” 23 Hence, Jesus’ express disdain of what He believed was the Pharisees’ use of their own
traditions (from their perspective, the divine oral Torah) to contravene the written Torah was, from
the Pharisees’ perspective, a disdain of their biblical knowledge and worth as teachers and leaders.
understanding. For instance, the Pharisees ask Jesus of Nazareth why His disciples and He do not
wash their hands before eating in accordance to the oral Torah or pick grain on the Sabbath. This
implies that Jesus of Nazareth teaches His disciples the oral Torah and understands that picking
grain on the Sabbath is a violation of the command to not work on the Sabbath. Similarly, Jesus of
Nazareth responds, in the first discourse, in a way that implies that the Pharisees should have
naturally understood that the written law given to Moses is superior to the oral Torah and, in the
second discourse, in a way that implies that the Pharisees need only read the Hebrew Bible to come
to an understanding that His disciple and He were not violating the Sabbath commandment.
Concerning the primary cause of this conflict, Dr. Brad Young, a professor at Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, writes, “Many scholars and Bible students fail to understand the essence of Jesus’
controversial ministry. Jesus’ conflict with his contemporaries was not so much over the doctrines of
the Pharisees, with which he was for the most part in agreement, but primarily over the
understanding of his mission. He did sharply criticize hypocrites…” 24
Dr. Young continues, “While Jesus disdained the hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he never attacked the
religious and spiritual teachings of Pharisaism. In fact, the sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees in
Matthew are introduced by an unmistakable affirmation, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’
seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do
not practice’ (Matt. 23:2-3). The issue at hand is one of practice. The content of the teachings of
the scribes and Pharisees was not a problem…The rabbis offered nearly identical
criticisms against those who teach but do not practice…The theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built
firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought…” 25
What can be concluded about the conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees as seen in
the examination of these two dialogues? It can be concluded that the conflict with all its intricacies
and miniatures were communications that called for each party to reconsider their identities. Such
conversations are bound to lead to conflict, 26 and possibly intended to lead to conflict in these
dialogues (at least by Jesus of Nazareth). When the Pharisees questioned Jesus of Nazareth, He
often responded quite harsh because of what He saw as hypocrisy and religiosity without
spirituality. Yet, Jesus’ responses to lay sinners and the Sadducees were far less harsh. James
Hastings writes, “They [the Sadducees] had little influence with the people, especially in religious
matters; His [Jesus’] criticism was therefore mainly directed against the Pharisees and scribes, the
supreme religious authorities.” 27 Hence, the conflict, at least for Jesus of Nazareth, was about His
concern that the people receive truth as He understood it. Many identities are involved in the
conflict, specifically both parties wanting to be seen as equal teachers (Am I Competent?) and holy
men (Am I a Good Person?).
In addition, the conflict was multi-layered with conflict existing at the many levels: a conflict between
religious leaders, a conflict between Jewish men, a conflict over the weight of oral tradition, a conflict
over how the written Torah and Hebrew Bible should properly be interpreted, a conflict over who
shall have influence among the people, et cetera. Jesus of Nazareth saw Himself as a new paradigm,
a voice sent to bring clarity to GOD’s revelation of Himself in the written Torah and Hebrew Bible.
The Pharisees saw themselves as holy men showing the people of Israel the way to holiness.
Therefore, the dialogues between the Pharisees and Jesus were going to be difficult conversations
and are difficult communications because both are asking the other to disrupt their sense of who
they are in the world.
The intriguing aspect is that both parties are firmly rooted in their beliefs and truly believe that the
other is in error. With these types of issues, I do not believe that the conflict should be taken
away. An environment existed, even if each party used it differently, that allowed for competition of
thought, which is healthy. And, even when the dialogues between Jesus of Nazareth and the
Pharisees seemed communicatively violent, it should not be intervened by an “objective,” “neutral,”
“impartial” party to get the parties to understand and tolerate each other’s perspectives because
this is an ethnic and religious dialogue that allows for such communication, and at least was used by
Jesus of Nazareth to be shockingly thought provoking.
structuring of the question posed to Jesus of Nazareth. The form of communication can lead to
conflict even though communicative form is often not thought about when a person speaks. The
Pharisees structured the question in a way that made it seem as if the issue was an episodic
disagreement, that is, Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples were not living according to the oral Torah
by not washing their hands before they ate. However, their real issue is on the juridical-religious
level – not with just that one episode. The question’s structure is evidence of the Pharisees’ conflict
management style on this occasion.
Everyone has a conflict management style, whether a conscious approach or an unconscious
reaction. The way a person responds to a conflict defines the person’s style. Some people are able
to vary their approach, that is, change their style depending on the situation or the people involved.
Yet, most people usually use one style in most situations. People will range in style from avoidance
or accommodation to compromise or competition to collaboration. Here, the Pharisees came off
accommodating, that is, they wanted to address the deeper issue without being explicit about it
(possibly to not appear openly offensive). In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth took the issue to a deeper
level when He did not simply answer their question directly but attacked the Pharisees’ view on the
oral Torah, which He felt was no more than the traditions of men. Notice that Jesus of Nazareth
begins with a scriptural attack on the Pharisees’ relationship with GOD (their heart is far from GOD)
and their theology (they are vain worshippers and disregarders and rejecters of the written Torah
because they teach and hold on to the oral Torah). Secondly, Jesus of Nazareth implicitly judges the
Pharisees according to the principle of a breaker of one aspect of the law is a breaker of all the law.
Jesus of Nazareth alludes to what He perceives to be an example of the Pharisees using the oral
Torah (“corban”) 17 as a means to free themselves from what He sees as the obvious obligations of
the written Torah (“Honor your father and mother” 18; “Whoever insults his father or mother must
be put to death” 19).
The interest behind both issues – whether it is ceremonial washing or the weight of the oral Torah –
is holiness. As explained earlier, the Pharisees arose out of the Hakamic movement that promoted
holiness for all people. Jesus of Nazareth was also a promoter of holiness for all people –
admonishing His disciples to be perfect for their heavenly Father is perfect and seen in the dialogue
with His concern about defilement. The importance of the dialogue is how holiness should be
promoted and achieved. It could also be said that the interest behind both the Pharisees and Jesus’
positions at both levels is really righteousness, that is, right standing with and before GOD because
holiness is only a means or result of righteousness (depending on the starting point). The
Pharisees’ and Jesus’ starting points are different. The Pharisees starting point is that
righteousness is the result of obeying the written Torah and the oral Torah. Jesus’ starting point is
that righteousness is the result of not obedience to the written or oral Torah but faith which is the
product of GOD’s grace to people. This type of conflict can be intractable because it involves
traditions and values and the identity of the people found therein.
A situation of this magnitude is only amplified when not only is the tradition and value attacked but
the person holding the tradition and value is attacked. Such is the case with both the Pharisees who
imply that Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples are not acceptable to GOD because they are ritually
unclean since they did not ceremonially wash their hands and with Jesus of Nazareth who calls the
Pharisees “hypocrites” and violators of the written law given to Moses. Concerning Jesus’ personal
attacks on the Pharisees, Louis Feldman writes, “But when Jesus refers to Pharisees as ‘hypocrites’
(Matthew 23:13) and a ‘brood of vipers’ (Matthew 23:33), he is berating fellow Jews. Jesus
undoubtedly regards his violent language as following the tradition of the prophets when they
castigated fellow Jews of their day. In other words, it is a family quarrel. Jesus looks upon himself as
continuing the Jewish tradition of self-criticism.” 20 If Louis Feldman is correct, then the conflict
between the Pharisees and Jesus of Nazareth was cultural (a product of a religious and ethnic culture
that encouraged debate) and of the type that should not be mediated unless possibly the mediation
is to bring understanding and tolerance of each other’s perspectives.
The conflicts between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees were not limited to the issue of the
authority of the oral Torah but also involved how the written Torah should be interpreted and
applied to everyday Jewish life. In Mark 2:23-28, the Pharisees and Jesus of Nazareth have a
discourse about the scope of the commandment to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy:
- Jesus was going through the grain fields on a Sabbath, and his disciples began to pick some
grain as they made their way. So the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is
against the law on the Sabbath?” He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when
he was in need and he and his companions were hungry— how he entered the house of God
when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread, which is against the law for any but
the priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” Then Jesus said to them, “The
Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. For this reason the Son of Man is
lord even of the Sabbath.”
Unlike the question that the Pharisees posed to Jesus of Nazareth about ceremonial washing, the
Pharisees asked Jesus of Nazareth explicitly about his understanding of the Sabbath
commandment. Not only do the Pharisees change their approach but Jesus of Nazareth also
changes his conflict management style. Although Jesus of Nazareth varied the style of His answer,
His conflict management style is still that of a competitor, which is not surprising because both the
Pharisees and Jesus of Nazareth were fighting over the minds and hearts of the people and for both
it was (spiritually) a life and death situation. Notice that Jesus of Nazareth responds to the charge
that what His disciples were doing was against the law with an analogy: “If David did it for his troops
in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.”
Hence, Jesus admits implicitly that it would appear that His disciples and He are committing a
violation but greater insight into their situation shows that no violation exists either because a
“greater need” (their hunger) makes their action permissible or this type of action was always within
the intention of the law (the Sabbath is made for people).
Also, Jesus of Nazareth counters that He is the Son of Man (a title that designates the Jewish
Messiah) who created the Sabbath for people and, thus, can define what does and does not violate
the Sabbath. Unlike the first counter which is a reference to the Hebrew Bible and could prove
persuasive to the Pharisees, Jesus of Nazareth claiming to not only be the Messiah but also GOD
(lord of the Sabbath) is blasphemous at least to this group of Pharisees since some Pharisees did
follow Jesus of Nazareth. It would seem that Jesus of Nazareth purposefully escalated the conflict to
an impasse because the Pharisees might have bought His first counter. Looking at the objects used
in phrasing gives great insight into the emotional level of each party.
The Pharisees start out asking “why are they…” The word “they” in a negative context exhibits a
sense of stereotyping or prejudgment. No doubt Jesus of Nazareth felt prejudged. He responds
with “have you never read…” which is a negation. The word “you” when used in a response implies
that the speaker is defensive and counter-accusing the initial speaker,8 which is exactly what
happened. The Pharisees prejudge that Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples are violating the
Sabbath commandment and Jesus of Nazareth responds by defending that His disciples and He are
not violating the commandment but rather the Pharisees have no true understanding of the written
Torah.
In contrast to how Jesus of Nazareth dealt with the Pharisees and the problem presented before
Him, He was hard on the problem but soft on the people. In this dialogue, He never personally
attacks the Pharisees but challenges their interpretation of the written Torah in light of other
passages in the Hebrew Bible. He also claimed to be the GOD-Messiah and, though that may have
escalated the conflict in that the Pharisees probably found the claim blasphemous, it was not a
personal attack. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth was hard on the problem by explaining that He was not
violating the Sabbath command of the written Torah from His understanding of the command in light
of the entire Hebrew Bible. He was soft on the people by simply provoking their exegesis of the
written Torah.
As mentioned before, the environmental context of the communications between the Pharisees and
Jesus of Nazareth was a religious and ethnic culture that encouraged debate. Yet, the parties may
understand or use the environmental context of communication differently. The Pharisees, as stated
before, were eclectic meaning that they believed that a greater understanding of the written Torah is
achieved with various interpretations of the Torah. In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth was
fundamentalist meaning that He believed that He Himself was the ultimate revelation of GOD’s truth.
So, it could be that the Pharisees often confronted Jesus of Nazareth about His disregard of the oral
Torah and sometimes what appeared to be a violation of the written Torah to get Jesus’ stance on
positions that the Pharisees’ already hold. Yet, Jesus used the process not for debating purposes
but as a preaching forum per se.
The conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees is a conflict between religious leaders. It is
clear that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious leader because He had followers, disciples, and apostles.
Also, many would approach Him calling Him “Master” and “Rabbi.” The vast majority of the scribes
were Pharisees and many Pharisees were priests. Also, the Pharisees regulated the synagogues,
teaching, and interpreting the written Torah and oral Torah. Although the Pharisees never
constituted a majority 21, most Jewish people, though most were non-sectarian, looked up to the
Pharisees as examples of godliness. 22 Therefore, an attack on Jesus of Nazareth and/or His
disciples or an attack on the Pharisees was an implicit attack on the status of both parties. As seen
in the two dialogues examined, the Pharisees’ attack on what they perceived was Jesus’ violation of
their oral Torah or the written Torah was possibly inquiry but Jesus’ attacks on the Pharisees was a
total disregard of their interpretation and application of the written Torah and acceptance of the oral
Torah. The Pharisees were solidly devoted to the daily application and observance of the written law
given to Moses and the oral Torah. Paul Johnson, in describing the Pharisees’ oral Torah, writes:
“They followed ancient traditions inspired by an obscure text in Deuteronomy, ‘put it in their
mouths’, that God had given Moses, in addition to the written Law, an Oral Law, by which learned
elders could interpret and supplement the sacred commands. The practice of the Oral Law made it
possible for the Mosaic code to be adapted to changing conditions and administered in a realistic
manner.” 23 Hence, Jesus’ express disdain of what He believed was the Pharisees’ use of their own
traditions (from their perspective, the divine oral Torah) to contravene the written Torah was, from
the Pharisees’ perspective, a disdain of their biblical knowledge and worth as teachers and leaders.
understanding. For instance, the Pharisees ask Jesus of Nazareth why His disciples and He do not
wash their hands before eating in accordance to the oral Torah or pick grain on the Sabbath. This
implies that Jesus of Nazareth teaches His disciples the oral Torah and understands that picking
grain on the Sabbath is a violation of the command to not work on the Sabbath. Similarly, Jesus of
Nazareth responds, in the first discourse, in a way that implies that the Pharisees should have
naturally understood that the written law given to Moses is superior to the oral Torah and, in the
second discourse, in a way that implies that the Pharisees need only read the Hebrew Bible to come
to an understanding that His disciple and He were not violating the Sabbath commandment.
Concerning the primary cause of this conflict, Dr. Brad Young, a professor at Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, writes, “Many scholars and Bible students fail to understand the essence of Jesus’
controversial ministry. Jesus’ conflict with his contemporaries was not so much over the doctrines of
the Pharisees, with which he was for the most part in agreement, but primarily over the
understanding of his mission. He did sharply criticize hypocrites…” 24
Dr. Young continues, “While Jesus disdained the hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he never attacked the
religious and spiritual teachings of Pharisaism. In fact, the sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees in
Matthew are introduced by an unmistakable affirmation, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’
seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do
not practice’ (Matt. 23:2-3). The issue at hand is one of practice. The content of the teachings of
the scribes and Pharisees was not a problem…The rabbis offered nearly identical
criticisms against those who teach but do not practice…The theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built
firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought…” 25
What can be concluded about the conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Pharisees as seen in
the examination of these two dialogues? It can be concluded that the conflict with all its intricacies
and miniatures were communications that called for each party to reconsider their identities. Such
conversations are bound to lead to conflict, 26 and possibly intended to lead to conflict in these
dialogues (at least by Jesus of Nazareth). When the Pharisees questioned Jesus of Nazareth, He
often responded quite harsh because of what He saw as hypocrisy and religiosity without
spirituality. Yet, Jesus’ responses to lay sinners and the Sadducees were far less harsh. James
Hastings writes, “They [the Sadducees] had little influence with the people, especially in religious
matters; His [Jesus’] criticism was therefore mainly directed against the Pharisees and scribes, the
supreme religious authorities.” 27 Hence, the conflict, at least for Jesus of Nazareth, was about His
concern that the people receive truth as He understood it. Many identities are involved in the
conflict, specifically both parties wanting to be seen as equal teachers (Am I Competent?) and holy
men (Am I a Good Person?).
In addition, the conflict was multi-layered with conflict existing at the many levels: a conflict between
religious leaders, a conflict between Jewish men, a conflict over the weight of oral tradition, a conflict
over how the written Torah and Hebrew Bible should properly be interpreted, a conflict over who
shall have influence among the people, et cetera. Jesus of Nazareth saw Himself as a new paradigm,
a voice sent to bring clarity to GOD’s revelation of Himself in the written Torah and Hebrew Bible.
The Pharisees saw themselves as holy men showing the people of Israel the way to holiness.
Therefore, the dialogues between the Pharisees and Jesus were going to be difficult conversations
and are difficult communications because both are asking the other to disrupt their sense of who
they are in the world.
The intriguing aspect is that both parties are firmly rooted in their beliefs and truly believe that the
other is in error. With these types of issues, I do not believe that the conflict should be taken
away. An environment existed, even if each party used it differently, that allowed for competition of
thought, which is healthy. And, even when the dialogues between Jesus of Nazareth and the
Pharisees seemed communicatively violent, it should not be intervened by an “objective,” “neutral,”
“impartial” party to get the parties to understand and tolerate each other’s perspectives because
this is an ethnic and religious dialogue that allows for such communication, and at least was used by
Jesus of Nazareth to be shockingly thought provoking.
Troy Anthony Thomas was born on
May 1, 1983. He will be graduating
with a Juris Doctorate in December
2005 from Pepperdine University
School of Law and a Masters of
Dispute Resolution in May 2006
from Pepperdine University’s
Straus Institute. In October 2006,
he will commence his Master of
Laws studies at the University of
Essex in Colchester, England where
he will be studying International
Human Rights Law. He currently
resides in Malibu, California.
May 1, 1983. He will be graduating
with a Juris Doctorate in December
2005 from Pepperdine University
School of Law and a Masters of
Dispute Resolution in May 2006
from Pepperdine University’s
Straus Institute. In October 2006,
he will commence his Master of
Laws studies at the University of
Essex in Colchester, England where
he will be studying International
Human Rights Law. He currently
resides in Malibu, California.
