Jesus the Pharisee

The television-style series The Chosen depicts an ‘earthy’ Jesus with lots of humor. Resembling liturgical drama, like The Quran, yes, that’s right, as it was initially intended through the Hadiths. In its fourth season of episodes, controversy lingers through its ecumenical reach. He is exemplified by lead actor Jonathan Roumie as Jesus, testifying through his Catholic/Orthodox faith. While visiting the Pope with creator Dallas Jenkins, criticism has increased with the disclosure of some Mormon producers in the mix.

Strange that Dallas did not invite any Muslim consultant in his panel, like the Messianic Rabbi (who helps explain the two Pharisaical schools) and a Roman Catholic Priest, all included with the Evangelicals; thus, so much for its ecumenism, but a big hit with the masses, as the public gravitates to the dramatic and the series unifying elements. May the show deepen biblical literacy, for it moves ‘the heart,’ and hopefully one’s head’s back to read the New Testament text and seek to live by its transformative message.

One novelty of the series — among the other productions of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, which depict him more celestial — is his engagement between two historically verifiable schools of Pharisees, which the Rabbi consultant does affirm—known as Shammai and Hillel, which play out within the series and the drama. The latter aligned with Jesus’ teachings. The former was in control of the Sanhedrin and nationalists. The Sadducees inspired such nationalism through its political wing in a coalition with King Herod and by a terror wing of extremist assassin Zealots. Jesus recruited from these nationalists to renounce their evil ways; here, this ‘earthy’ Jesus’ pacifism finds traction in a realistic presentation that confronts the hyper—grace & faith only caricature of the proclamation of His gospel with His Jewish observance. 

Thus, amid the many strong words Jesus used against certain Pharisees, probably Shammaites, he most importantly told His followers to obey them (Matthew 23:1- 3), “Do what they say for they sit in the seat of Moses.” Still, conflations of legalists with hypocrite Pharisees permeate our understanding. So, going against those with authority in the Qehela (Cultivated Olive Tree) is a valid question, especially if Jesus was one of the Hillites or at least received by them. What gave him the authority to call out the clergy and highlight a religion, not an ethnic group framed as a nation? Along political lines, it seems that Jesus of Nazareth had no interest in overthrowing Rome. His mission was religious or spiritual.

Moreover, he proclaimed religion as a spiritual action. When Jesus stated: “Don’t do what they do,” he affirmed the Qehal Jew over the Shammuti school or show-off Scribes and Pharisees, including opportunistic sola scriptura bound Sadducees who had no desire for Oral Torah observance. After all, who was the Apostle Paul but a Hillite taught by Gamaliel, who indeed echoed the position of our Lord against the ruling Sadducees and Shammaites, perhaps in a time of political and nationalistic manipulation? Again, these groups received His harshest words. They all went against Jesus of Nazareth and his inspiration toward the mission to the lost sheep of Israel, which came in many varieties due to the diversity of such an ethnic outreach and the grafting in (i.e., Idumea or Edom) and eventually the Gentiles or nations near and afar a process that has happened since Abraham’s Hagar (The Ger). 

Shammaites and Sadducees most likely define the majority opinion of the Jew or Judean ethnocentric nationalists, mentioned in The Gospel of John, who stood against the old faith through political alignments and religious alliances, for their kingdom was the total of this world with or without Rome and where the Idumeans eventually transferred their alignment with power. Christian and ethnic Jewish nationalism is no novelty, and religious conscience is something utterly other than genuinely spiritual. 

Therefore, the impulse of the Great Commission, salvation for all peoples, was also nothing new; it was just ‘Great’ in scope, inspired and aided by Hillite Pharisees onward toward Paul in The Book of Acts. Jesus and Paul were not that different, contrary to popular opinion. They demonstrate that the New Testament, as a text of the Oral Torah, was recorded to create Hebrew believers and to be authoritative in doctrine. The context of the gospel points toward living as the righteous in the security of God’s purposes over earthly aspirations.

👉 Read: Jesus the Pharisee
A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus
👉 Buy on Amazon
👉 YouTube: Obey the Pharisees
👉 The Anti-Christ

 

The above comparision is NOT quite right, showing that post WWII Messianic Jewish and Hebrew Rooters are not the Qehela and should not be considered as an authority on Jewish Halakah (Law). Caution is required by Christian use of the term Notzrim in modern Hebrew. Such a direction helps uncover early formative groups indentified in the historical Jesus pursuit some of which are properly analyzed by the following. NOT THIS (1) BUT THIS (2)

The Linage of Paul the Pharisee

Paul’s Arrival in Jerusalem and His Pharisaical Context
“When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.’”
— Acts 21:17–25

Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem reflects the complex dynamics of early Christianity, particularly its relationship with Judaism. This passage presents Paul as a figure both deeply rooted in Jewish tradition and misunderstood as a subversive founder of a “new religion.” Despite this, Paul’s mission aligned with Pharisaical tradition, particularly the teachings of the school of Hillel and his mentor, Gamaliel. His impact on the Western Roman Empire, and possibly even Spain (as some traditions suggest), highlights his pivotal role in spreading the Gospel beyond Judea.

Paul’s Mission and Strategy
Rashi interprets the Apostles as “infecting their culture to sway the Notzri (Christian) faith away from Judaism into Messianic Noahidism; they themselves were not heretics and did so for the benefit of the Jewish people.” Paul’s acceptance within Judea, despite controversy, and his subsequent ministry in Rome demonstrate his unique role in God’s plan to reach the nations. Under house arrest, near where St. Paul’s Basilica now stands, Paul leveraged Roman infrastructure to disseminate his teachings, fulfilling his calling as a doulos (bond-servant) of Christ to the ends of the earth.

Jewish Perspectives on Paul and Early Christianity
Orthodox Jewish sources also shed light on the emergence of Christianity as The Way of the Messianic Hebrews. From the Chazal (Jewish sages) to Yochanan ben Zakkai’s Pharisaic academy at Yavneh, early Jewish thought engaged with the New Testament’s mission to the nations. Notably, Paul’s letters circulated widely and were affirmed as part of this salvation-oriented mission.

Paul’s writings focus on the exaltation of Jesus Christ as Sar HaPanim (“Prince of the Presence”). His cosmic Christology transcends Jesus’ earthly ministry, emphasizing His crucifixion and resurrection as central to apocalyptic and eschatological hope. Paul ties Jesus to the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7), aligning the Gentiles’ inclusion with Israel’s salvific narrative.

Christological Development and Pharisaical Thought
Jewish thinkers like Rabbi Akiva (c. 50–135 CE) and his student, Rabbi Simeon bar Yochai, played pivotal roles in shaping Christological thought. While Akiva initially supported Bar Kokhba as the Messiah, he later rejected him, affirming a more spiritual lineage tied to Sar HaPanim. Simeon bar Yochai’s teachings in the Zohar present Metatron as the perfect man and divine emanation, paralleling Paul’s description of Jesus as Lord our Righteousness (Jeremiah 23:5–6).

The Piyyutim of Eleazar ben Kalir (570–640 CE) further explored the preexistence and divinity of the Messiah, preserving these ideas into the Middle Ages. Such traditions illustrate how Pharisaical and later rabbinical thought engaged with the concept of the Messiah, including its overlap with Christian theology.

The Continuity of Pharisaical Thought
The narrative in Acts 21–26 underscores Paul’s alignment with Pharisaical thought, particularly its mission to bring the nations under God’s covenant. This continuity is evident in the spiritual genealogy (shellshelit) of rabbis and sages who saw Jesus’ mission as part of Judaism’s broader purpose:

• Rashi (1040–1105): Commented on the intersection of Jewish and Christian missions.

• The Tosafists (12th century): Including Rabbis Simhah ben Samuel of Vitry and Rabbeinu Tam.

• Nachmanides (1194–1270): Bridged Jewish and Gentile understanding of messianic themes.

• The Meiri (1249–1316): Acknowledged the ethical and theological contributions of Christianity.

Later thinkers, such as Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), emphasized Christianity’s role in spreading monotheism and biblical ethics to the nations. Hirsch recognized Christianity’s estrangement from Judaism as necessary to bring the message of the One God to a world steeped in idolatry and immorality. Similarly, Pinchas Lapide and Harvey Falk explored Jewish-Christian relations, highlighting Paul’s significance within the Pharisaical framework.

A Minority Tradition within Rabbinic Judaism?

While the majority of rabbinical Judaism opposed Christianity, minority voices throughout history acknowledged its role in the divine plan. Figures like Jacob Emden (1697–1776) and Isaac Lichtenstein (1824–1908) affirmed the ethical monotheism shared by Judaism and Christianity. Samson Raphael Hirsch noted that Christianity and Islam emerged from Judaism to combat idolatry, immorality, and spiritual degradation.

Conclusion

Paul’s mission, rooted in Pharisaical tradition, was not an attack on Judaism but its fulfillment for the nations. Acts 21–26 reflects the complexities of his role, both within Jewish thought and as a messenger to the Gentiles. The Pharisaical lineage of Paul continues to resonate through Jewish and Christian traditions, affirming Jesus as Yeshua Sar HaPanim, the culmination of God’s covenant with Israel and the nations.

👉 YouTube Playlist The Origins of the New Testament

Simon Cephas - St. Peter & Rome

Rome woooes the senses with Matthew 16:13-20 etched in gold along the Vatican’s towering Basilica’s perimeter under Michelangelo’s Dome and Pieta at the entrance. However, have Evangelicals really understood the text? 

Here, accepting Simon Cephas' confession as the divergence between Rome and Protestants misses the Hebrew reading, with the insertion of Petter (Petra) — a pun often used in Talmudic discussions with Cephas the rock. Such imagery refers to the Maccabean religious absorption of Edom/Petra/Nabataeans. Now comprised of Herodians and Rome, for Simon Peter (a redeemed lost sheep of Israel) was standing before syncretism not contextualization while at Caearea Phillpi among the pagan temples located there. All below the highest peak in the Holy Land, Mt. Hermon; another big rock ‘taking on a life of its own’ within the Jewish fables or sermons known as the Books of Enoch. 

God’s revelation impacts people reckoning with sin and idolatry back through the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians and those of Ur of the Chaldees who made up Abraham’s apostate family.  Including Esau’s brother and law, Nebaioth (Gen. 25, 28, 36), meaning prophet, who is the Petter Chamor, from the firstborn of Abraham, Ishmael. Whose children are today sadly cast as some evil seed, rather they represent a missiological trajectory to redeem the mixed multitude from the erev rav from where the term Arab originates.

Through the promise of inheritance, Isaac carries the oracles of God for its revelational purpose, Paul’s allegory with Hagar and our Heavenly Jerusalem in Galatians 4 points to the destination of the seed of promise which is available to all people!

So Jesus rode in on a donkey when he came to redeem the lost sheep. Donkeys, needed no explanation from the Good Shepherd, but were slandered into a animal symbol of stupidity in the West. A very clever travel companion who instinctively knows the safest, shortest route, the Donkey is the only contaminated animal (Tumah, not unclean as it is normally translated) holy enough through Pidyon haBen (redeeming the firstborn offspring), as described in Exodus 13. Jesus spoke ‘the Petter pun’ on ‘Ceiphas,’ a hardened sinful man (Luke 5:8) who by his confession becomes holy as an exempt Petter (firstborn) for the lost sheep in the church (Edah) and becomes one of its pillars out of the New Testement. 

Nevertheless, all things whatsoever a Qehel Pharisee like Paul bids must be kept and observed which explains Paul’s authority to rebuke Simon Peter for his ‘cultural ethno-centricity’ as described in the Epistle to the Galatians. Simon understood his ‘exemption’ to bring the gospel to Cornelius in Acts 10, but made a mistake for the perpetual tension that exists between Jewish Qehel observance. Peter having become a Hebrew and following Acts 15 as discipileship as Talmudim with his fellow lost sheep, the 12.  His actions for not fellowshipping and dining with gentiles in Antioch is thus understood as perhaps Judaizing. The heavy yoke Peter mentions at the Jerusalem could be also in view here. I think we are dealing with some very insightful developments in the New Testament texts that have been co-opted by Christendom.

RASHI (Talmud Commentator from the 1100s) states this about the Apostles “who purposely infected their culture in order to sway the Notzri faith away from Judaism (into Messianic Noahides) ; they themselves were not heretics and did so for the benefit of the Jewish people.” Even more conclusive is the Hebrew word Petur, meaning ‘Firstborn’ redeemed also implies ‘exempt’ which describes the role of a Petter Chamor, a Baal Teshuva who guides the Pilgrim Messianic Noahides like Cornelius.  Therefore, Simon Ben Jonah continued the tradition of revelation toward the nations. 

Possibly, the most enduring testament in Rome to ‘Simon St. Peter’ is the Alexamenos Graffiti on Palatine Hill. The academics claim such an animal god was brought from Egypt as an evil demiurge. Perhaps this simple ‘unclean, yet kosher’ donkey harkens us back to how missiology functioned in the Tanahk and LXX through an intelligent illustrative animal and its allegorical significance. Finally, why the pattern of the cross etched upon the beast of burden’s back?  

👉 Alexamenos Graffiti 

👉 Dumb Donkies: The Slander of Christendom

👉 Matt. 16 Word Study

👉 Petter Chamor YouTube Playlist

The Olive Tree & The Christmas Tree

 

2025 is the 1700 Year Anniversary 

of the Council of Nicaea, 

where Santa Claus ‘decked’ a heretic and 

where ALL of Christianity finds Unity

Did the Nicaean Council finalize the ‘parting of ways?’ No, but it kicked off specific persecution because its Christology was kosher: God from God, Light from Light, the same essence, substance or being as the Father, stands paramount.  Athanasius and Arius become prominent in our theology, evidenced by C.S. Lewis's introduction to a reprint of Athanasius 'On the Incarnation,' which demonstrates a reflection completely oblivious to Constantine's machinations. 

Does the humanity of Christ require a human? No, evidenced by Theotokos (God-Bearer), a term coined in the pre-Nicene era as kosher yet later developed into the ‘Mother of God’ like ‘begotten’ for the Son as a propositional creedal form that diverts from its Scriptural use, distorting their original meaning through human posits rather than than a respective genre found in scripture.

Since Jesus Christ was a “demigod-king”, why not Constantine? But his Arian team didn’t win in 325 as Homoousios prevailed! Still Constantine’s setback from his Arian stance, including Eusebius, was brief. The theological-political-ecclesial merger was set despite the ‘Kosher’ Christology. Moving to Constantinople in 330 and posting the 50 bibles in 331 he suddenly unleashed his wrath on the Holy Land, where he built the first three basilicas in 333 and, in the footsteps of Antiochus Epiphanius, Constantine compelled Christians to abandon Synagogues and forced them to eat pork at Pascha under the pain of death.

 

Nicaea exposes today’s Vatican II’s Jewish apology with the ‘Mother Church’ at the center, leveraging Evangelical accommodation and confusion under Rome's hegemony. After all, two of Constantine’s 50 Bibles remain today, thus, the Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus formed a complete text 1700 years ago. 

The Old and New Testament divisions refer to Israel's covenantal reception, yet the titles force a faulty paradigm as the New Covenant was already given in Jeremiah after the coerced covenant of Mt. Sinai. In other words, discipleship is the ‘obedience of faith’ and the coercive law is for children. Didn’t Jesus say let the little Children come unto me, including the family dog who benefitted from their proximity like the Syro-Phoenican Woman; examples of Pilgrims.

Was the eventual Chalcedonian Christology purely revelatory alignment? I argue it was theo-poltical. Significantly, the ancient churches Armenia, Syria, and the Copts are Mia/monophysite, as is Ana-Baptist Christology, recognizable as Adam Kadmon (The 2nd Adam). These ‘nations’ never had militant expansionist ways after their Christian conversion.

These Christian nations’ Christologies align much better with Old Testament theophanies, where titles within Judaism and names such as Sar HaPanim, or the Netaiot, manifest as a mediator angelic being, one with the Father (Ein sof Ohr) unapproachable light, manifested as the Spirit hovering above the waters, the One who walked in the cool of the day, and the Root of David. 

Finally and why the geneology in Luke 3:38 stands so signifcant: Here the Son of God who with his Heavenly Bride redeems the Sons of Men from their fallen (Nephil ) Cain (Genesis 4:6) ancestry. NOT the myths of Enochian corpus distorting Metatron with The Two Powers in heaven controversy, yet where the victory of Jesus of Nazareth proves Him as the Christ and for which the members of the Sanhedrin tore their garments, yet condemed the innocent Lamb of God for US!