Jesus was a Jew living amongst Jews. Many Pharisees would have welcomed his teaching, but some would have complained about the way he understood Torah. We can get a contemporary feel for this edge when we listen to our own theological debates in the church, some of which embrace new thinking and some of which resist what is perceived to challenge what is known and safe.
Amy Jill Levine remarks on her blog (http://johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-pharisees-by-amy-jill-levine.html) that for the majority of Jesus’ Jewish audience the Pharisees would have been respected teachers, those who walked the walk as well as talked the talk. Josephus, a priest who found the Pharisees’ voluntary organization in competition with his own inherited priestly status, mentions their interpretations of the Torah designed to make the ancient teachings relevant to the society of their day: “On account of which doctrines, they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities gave great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also.”
The Pharisees functioned away from the Temple, in the same milieu as Jesus. Some of them would have identified with his understanding of the spirit of the law, but others would have clung to the idea of the letter of the law. This divide has allowed us to entertain slavery, sexism, gender bigotry, intelligence and physical prejudices, classism, and so on, as we argued our way to inclusivity and back to the hospitality of the followers of Jesus.
In Mark 2:23-3:6, Jesus remarks that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for a code of arbitrary rules. This is an echo throughout the sacred story of Israel, the conflict between compassionate justice and dispassionate law. Always the story comes back to the essence of God’s will which is to protect the vulnerable and to expect more of those with authority. In the call of Samuel (1 Samuel 3:1-10, (11-20)), the boy receives a prophecy in which he will be required to call out senior priests for their abuse of their power and thus, their disrespect for the way of the Holy One.
I don’t think this is just about religious institutions. All institutions require accountability for their work and for how they do that work, for the assets they have, and how they use those assets. And the voices calling people to account may come from surprising sources: the young, the disenfranchised, the invisible citizens of a community.
So how do we hear these challenges? I think we ask ourselves the tough questions about what we are protecting for our own comfort, what we have trouble sacrificing for others (especially those whom we do not consider “ours”). Jesus told us that we, too, would be asked to carry a cross that would require courage and commitment, humility and sacrifice, concern for others whom we have yet to meet. Like the Pharisees, we have to decide to follow Jesus down a risky path, or we have to deny and resist the new call of the Holy One.