Jesus, The Equal Peer

Was Jesus a Pharisee? In both definition and practice, the answer is yes. You might be asking, "How in the world could we possibly say this? Jesus clearly hated the Pharisees! Right?" This mindset is reflective of the common sentiment felt by nearly all Christians. The very word "Pharisee" is a Christian pejorative for "legalistic, heretic, hypocrite" or worse. Pharisees are seen as the worst kind of leaders, like corrupt politicians or do-nothing, micromanaging bosses.

But this sentiment is indicative of exactly how little Christians understand about Phariseeism. For nearly all Christians, everything they know about the Pharisees comes entirely from the writings of the narrow view of the Gospels. They are unaware of the social or political context in which they existed, the synagogue and education process, and the geopolitical contexts of the first century. As a result, they interpret the sayings of Yeshua (Jesus) without these considerations and make uninformed conclusions. 

Christians only see the negative things Yeshua had to say to the Pharisees, and vice versa, only see the negative attitude the Pharisees seem to have towards Yeshua. But to any Rabbinic Jew, these interactions seem entirely normal. In fact, these interactions are very familiar to any student of the Talmud (teachings and commentaries on the Torah/Mishnah/Oral Torah). These discourses are business as usual for the ancient Rabbis, and as any student of the Talmud would tell you, there is a crucial indicator within these discourses that all but tells us explicitly that Yeshua was a fellow Pharisee:

Pharisees spoke to Yeshua

Very few, even well-studied Christians, know that the ancient world was divided very clearly into classes, a hierarchy system. One of these classes is the Pharisees themselves, and in a society of class structure, one of the upper class rarely, if ever, will interact with the lower class outside of an instructional setting. In a Jewish setting, this class system is not divided in wealth alone but primarily along intellectual & theological lines. Many of the Pharisees were what we would classify as middle-class today. But being a Pharisee was equivalent to having a Ph.D. These Pharisees organized themselves into groups called "Chaverim" (peers), much like advanced-level educated people do today, but more extreme than we are used to today.

"Chaverim" would not typically interact with commoners outside the academic setting. Yet we see in the gospel accounts that the Pharisees constantly interact with Yeshua, asking questions and testing his intellectual arguments. This treatment is very typical of chaverim. 

As a modern example, you wouldn't see highly accredited scholars engaged in a serious intellectual discourse with a stranger on the street trying to insist that all birds are fake and actually government drones. Any respected scholar would ignore such a person entirely, knowing that whatever little following he garners will fizzle out over time. 

Pharisees likewise did not engage with the uneducated except only to teach them something. Even if they were to teach something, they wouldn't speak if they believed their words would be ignored, as the Pharisees themselves write:

Just as you are obligated to speak when your words will be heeded, you must remain silent when you know your words will be ignored. (Yevamot 65b)

If Yeshua were merely a common, loud-mouthed apocalyptic preacher, it's unlikely the Pharisees would have taken him seriously, regardless of the large crowds he attracted. Yeshua certainly wasn't the first or the last preacher of this sort in the later half years of the second temple period. What sets Yeshua apart, however, is that the Pharisees considered him a "chaver" (peer).

At the Table of Sinners

"If Yeshua was a Pharisee, and Pharisees didn't interact socially with commoners, then why do we see Yeshua clearly seated at the tables of sinners and tax collectors?" This is an excellent question, and in fact the very question itself only proves our point! Let's take a look at this exact question in the gospels. 

When the scribes who were Pharisees saw that He was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they asked His disciples, "Why does He eat with tax collectors and sinners?" (Mark 2:16 ESV)

Look who is asking the question. Well, it is none other than the Pharisees themselves asking this question! So this raises another question: if Yeshua was merely another commoner, why would the Pharisees even care to ask such a question? What concern is it of theirs if a commoner eats with commoners? Why should they expect better from a commoner? Why was this behavior so shocking to the Pharisees? 

If we read this question from the perspective that Yeshua is a fellow chaver, a fellow Pharisee, they certainly have cause for concern and a good reason to ask such a question. Chevarim had rules, and some of those rules concerned table fellowship. Chevarim were discouraged from eating with "sinners" like tax collectors. The attitude towards tax collectors was so hostile that a debate took place that day about whether a person could even return to being a chaver if they were ever a tax collector. 

The Sages taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say about one who is a chaver and became a tax collector that he is rejected from his status as a chaver. Even if he later resigns from his position as a tax collector, he is not accepted. In later generations, they went back to saying that if he resigns from his position as a tax collector, he is like any other person and may be accepted once again as a chaver. (Bekhorot 31a:4)

The "non-chaver" is the commoner. In Hebrew, they are referred to as an "am ha'aretz," meaning "people of the earth." According to Daf Shevui to Avodah Zara, a commentary by Rabbi Joshua Kulp: 

An "am ha'aretz" is a person who is by definition not a haver, meaning the person is not assumed to act with a high level of scrupulousness in certain matters such as tithing and purity. To be trusted as a chaver, meaning to move from being an am ha'aretz to being a haver, one has to formally accept upon himself or herself to act in accordance with these ways. Indeed, the laws of conversion were probably patterned after these laws. (Daf Shevui to Avodah Zara 39a:13)

As you can see, purity laws, in general, are fundamental to the Chevarim. This is not to say that purity was not important to the commoner, but it is to say that the commoner is under no obligation to observe purity laws to the extent as the chaver. If Yeshua were merely a commoner, an "am ha'aretz," then there would be no surprise to see him at the table with tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisees' reaction tells us that they considered him a fellow chaver and were inquiring about their peer's peculiar behavior. 

Knowing the particulars of chaver customs, the fact that Yeshua was invited to eat at the table of a Pharisee (Luke 11:37) is another indicator they considered him a chaver. Remember, Yeshua eating at the table with "sinners" is surprising because, generally, chevarim only ever shared table fellowship with each other and their disciples. And this is primarily because of the purity laws.

Returning to the initial verse (Mark 2:16 ESV), the Pharisees ask, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Yeshua answers in a way that is also telling. Pay careful attention to the adjectives Yeshua uses for the groups in question. 

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17 ESV)

The "sick" are the sinners and the am ha'aretz. Notice he didn't call the Pharisees "sick" and "in need of a physician". The righteous, in this reply, are the Pharisees. This isn't the only time Yeshua calls the Pharisees righteous either.

[Jesus said:] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20 ESV)

He explicitly calls the Pharisees "righteous" here and even sets them as the standard for righteousness. Yeshua is not setting a "low bar" here; he is setting an incredibly high standard. This is similar to saying, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of Paul the apostle, you will never make it into the kingdom of heaven." If I were to say this in a church today, nobody would ever assume that I mean to say that Paul is a hopeless hypocritical sinner and legalist doomed to eternal damnation. Christians would rightly assume that this is an exaggerated speech and may also believe that I'm using Paul as the standard and a goal, not a pejorative.

Hostile Work Environment

So, let's return to the personal encounters between the Pharisees and Yeshua. Another common question regards the nature of the encounters with the Pharisees. With exception to the example in the point above, the encounters almost all seem exclusively hostile. The average reader would probably struggle to recall even one good thing Yeshua ever said about the Pharisees (even though he did).

Remember, this is a very class-heavy society. We have covered that the upper intellectual class rarely interacts with the lower class outside of the academic setting, but this street goes both ways. The lower class never, and I mean never, criticize the upper class publicly. It's not their place to do so. Lower-class commoners may, and often did, disagree with the upper intellectual class, but never publicly. The upper class is the G-d ordained authorities, and to publicly shame your G-d ordained elders is to teeter on borderline blasphemy. Whether you agree with them or not, you have no authority to openly criticize them unless you are a peer or a fellow expert. 

This concept may sound foreign to us in the modern world. Our current society is, by definition, predominantly a classless one. We make some class distinctions, often based on wealth or inheritance, but these are superficial classes compared to the ancient world. In the ancient world, class distinctions were clear lines not to be crossed, and there was largely no concept of protected free speech. With the advent of free speech and a predominantly classless society, we are used to the idea of the common person openly and publicly criticizing anyone and everyone to their heart's desire, and usually without fear of legal punishments either. But even so, let's use the modern adaptation to help us understand what's happening here. 

Which criticism is the more credible threat to a Ph.D. expert: a fellow Ph.D. expert in the same academic field or a guy on Reddit named "BirdFlapsMcGee" with 20,000 followers? If you said the former, then you would be correct. There is a reason why "peer-reviewed" work is considered the standard for academic excellence and growth. 

There would be no reason for the Pharisees of Yeshuas day to feel threatened by him if they did not consider him a peer. Even if Yeshua was a commoner who was brave enough to slander the Pharisees and challenge the status quo boldly, it's not likely the Pharisees would have viewed this as a legitimate threat. Again, they would probably just ignore this crazy homeless guy. Yet, we see that they take Yeshua very seriously. More to the point, what we see Yeshua doing with the Pharisees is actually the most common thing known about Pharisees. 

When engaged in discourse, Pharisees are famous for using strong language at each other. Their lifestyle was filled with constant debate amongst each other, which frequently became very heated, and to the outside unfamiliar viewer, it does appear hostile. However, this apparent hostility is how Pharisees talk and is in no way considered genuine hate.

Pharisees are the only ones allowed to criticize another Pharisee which could lead to potential problems with complacency and even tyranny without a system of checks and balances. To keep each other honest, they were not only free to openly criticize each other in public but were also encouraged to use "passionate" language, the kind of language that would shock a person, grab their attention, and force a person to consider themselves in the discourse seriously. But again, I cannot stress enough how this is only appropriate for other Pharisees to do with each other, as they are peers; this is their version of a live "peer review" process. 

For the Pharisees, this heated and passionate debate over the scriptures and how to practice the Torah is viewed as a form of worship (to G-d). Jacob Neusner, in his book Invitation to the Talmud: A Teaching Book, talks more extensively on the nature of these debates, how they are seen as imitating Moses, and concludes (and I'm paraphrasing here): 

Thus, in debating and disagreeing over the meaning of the Torah or how best to put it into practice, no rabbi felt that he (or his opponent) was rejecting God or threatening Judaism; on the contrary, it was precisely through such arguments that the rabbis imitated and honored God.

This is precisely what we see happening between Yeshua and the Pharisees. Most Christians think of passages in which certain Pharisees plot how to "destroy" Yeshua (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6). This is likely a rhetorical attack, not a physical one. They were likely trying to "destroy" him by reputation, and I say this because the only times we see a plot to outright "kill" Yeshua is not from the Pharisees but from the Sadducees. The Gospels only ever use the word "destroy" when referring to the Pharisees' plan; however, when the priests and Sadducees are making plans, it plainly says that they wanted to "kill" him (Matthew 26:3-4, 59; 27:1; Mark 14:1).

This brings us to an extremely significant verse in Luke:

At that very hour, some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you." (Luke 13:31 ESV)

The Pharisees were concerned about the life of their fellow chaver even if they disagreed with him. Maybe not all of the Pharisees, but we see a lot of evidence already that a school of Pharisees considered Yeshua to be a chaver, constantly engaging in discourse with him. 

The Disciples' Tact

Consider, if you will, that after the resurrection of Yeshua, none of his disciples ever openly criticized a single Pharisee in their lifetime. Does this not strike you as strange? Yeshua spent a lot of words in the gospels openly criticizing the Pharisees, yet we don't see any of his disciples repeat any of these phrases in either Acts or any of the epistles we have from them; what gives? 

This is because Yeshua's disciples never became ordained Pharisees, so it was not their place to do so. Any criticisms they may have had, they had kept privately or tactfully. Anyone with military experience can relate to some of the tactful language used by the disciples. You'd never tell an officer that he is screwed up the same way you would tell a fellow enlisted peer. With officers especially, you would tell them in such a way that is respectful and non-confrontational. 

An example would be the uniform. If a sergeant sees another sergeant or one ranked below with a messed up uniform, there would be a "hard correction" on that individual. But if the sergeant saw an officer (who is a superior) with a messed up uniform, the approach would be gentler, such as, "Sir, I believe your ribbon rack may need another closer look before you go in there." 

This type of language spans the entire book of Acts in multiple places. The reason why Yeshua engages the Pharisees in such an extreme way is because he was a "peer" of the Pharisees. After Yeshua's ascension, his disciples (who were told to imitate Yeshua) knew they were not peers and thus refused to do the same because it was not their place to do so.

The chain of command is another element to consider. Pharisees had disciples, while commoners did not. Pharisees respected the chain of command regarding how a chaver teaches and handles his disciples. It was not proper for a Pharisee to correct another Pharisee's disciple. And in Matthew 15, we see the Pharisees respect Yeshua as the "officer in charge" and address him directly about his disciples. 

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." (Matthew 15:1-2 ESV)

This respect for the chain of command is another key indicator that the Pharisees viewed Yeshua as a fellow Chaver. 

Conclusion

This point is not the only indicator of Yeshua's Pharisaic identity. Some examples include Yeshua eating at the table with other Pharisees more than once (Luke 11:37, Luke 14:1). Also, Pharisees were a big part of the early Yeshua believers (Acts 15:5). It's also important to note that Yeshua told his disciples to obey the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2-3). In addition, Yeshua spoke like a Pharisee while quoting other Pharisees and oral traditions that belonged only to the Pharisees. Then we have Paul, a Pharisee who Yeshua chose to be the minister who would spread his message to the Gentile world. Every one of these verses and themes can be examined more in-depth, and they barely scratch the surface of Yeshua's identity as a Pharisee. 

Sadly, Yeshua's identity has been long forgotten by the anti-Jewish church fathers and, subsequently, the entire church in her history. But it is not an identity that the Jewish scholars have forgotten or ignored. It is well-known by prominent figures such as Rabbi Jacob Emden, Rabbi Harvey Falk, and Rabbi Hyam Maccoby, to name a few. 

Restoring Jesus' Jewish identity will help others gain a fuller understanding of his teachings, as well as repair much of the damage done between Christian and Jewish relations as a result of historical ignorance and the early church's desire to cut themselves off from Judaism.

Today, Rabbinic Orthodox Judaism is the direct descendant of the Pharisee sect that Jesus agreed with, befriended, and asked his disciples to obey. The same school of Pharisees Paul was trained in. And that's why this matters. Christianity wasn't meant to abandon and reject Judaism; it was originally (and intended to stay) a brother alongside Judaism, a sect within Pharisee orthodoxy, not opposed to it. We have come a long way, and Christianity has strayed incredibly far from its origin point. We have a lot of work to do, but there is always time to begin rebuilding the path. Restoring Jesus' Jewish Pharisee identity is a stepping stone to preparing the way.