Many modern Christians claim to follow Jesus, yet interpret His words and actions through the very framework of the Pharisees—the men who opposed Him most fiercely. This is not a minor theological misstep. It is a fundamental distortion. When Christians argue that Jesus violated God’s law or taught against it, they are not merely misunderstanding a few passages; they are undermining the very foundation of the gospel they claim to believe.
The issue is straightforward. For Jesus to be the spotless Lamb, capable of taking away the sin of the world, He must have lived in perfect obedience to God’s law. If He broke it—even once—then He is disqualified. Scripture is clear that He “committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:22) and was “tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). If He violated the law, then He is not sinless—and if He is not sinless, the cross loses its meaning. And yet, many Christians confidently point to certain passages as evidence that Jesus abolished dietary laws, disregarded the Sabbath, or set aside the commandments altogether. In doing so, they unknowingly echo the accusations of the Pharisees themselves.
Take, for example, the often-cited passage in Mark 7, where it is said that Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). At face value, this is taken to mean that He overturned the dietary laws given in the Torah (Leviticus 11). But this interpretation collapses as soon as the context is examined. The dispute begins when the Pharisees question why the disciples eat bread with unwashed hands (Mark 7:5). This is not a violation of God’s law, but of “the tradition of the elders.” The practice of ritual handwashing for purity was originally given to priests in the tabernacle (Exodus 30:18–21), yet the Pharisees expanded it into a universal requirement. Jesus rebukes them directly: “In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7), and again, “You lay aside the commandment of God and hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). He is not abolishing God’s law; He is defending it against corruption.
The irony is difficult to ignore. A passage that condemns the elevation of man-made tradition over God’s commandments is now used to justify setting aside those very commandments. In attempting to distance themselves from legalism, many Christians have adopted a new form of it—one that selectively dismisses parts of God’s law while claiming divine authority to do so.
This same misunderstanding appears in the account of the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath in Matthew 12. Critics, both ancient and modern, claim this as evidence that Jesus condoned breaking the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1–2). But the law itself explicitly allows for a person to pluck grain by hand to satisfy hunger: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand” (Deuteronomy 23:25). What is prohibited is labor for profit—harvesting and commerce—not meeting immediate need. The disciples were not working; they were eating. Once again, the accusation rests not on the law of God, but on an inflated interpretation of it.
Jesus reinforces this point by referencing David eating the consecrated bread (1 Samuel 21:1–6) and by declaring, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Matthew 12:7; cf. Hosea 6:6). He also points out that the priests “profane the Sabbath, and are blameless” (Matthew 12:5), meaning they perform duties commanded by God even on that day. The conclusion is clear: “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8). This is not a declaration that the Sabbath is abolished, but that Jesus has authority to rightly interpret and uphold it.
The pattern continues with Jesus healing on the Sabbath. To some, this appears to be a direct violation (Matthew 12:9–10). But this view ignores the heart of the law itself. The Torah commands acts of mercy, even toward one’s enemy: “If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden… you shall surely help him” (Exodus 23:5). Jesus appeals to this principle, asking, “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12). Healing is not a violation of the Sabbath—it is a fulfillment of its intent.
A similar misunderstanding arises in John 5, when Jesus tells a healed man to carry his mat (John 5:8–10). This is often framed as a violation of the command against bearing burdens on the Sabbath (Jeremiah 17:21–22). Over time, this was expanded into a blanket prohibition against carrying anything at all. However, the Torah never prohibited carrying things on the Sabbath as a type of work, it only prohibited work in a business sense. God had already commanded that His law not be added to or taken away from (Deuteronomy 12:32). Once again, tradition had distorted the law. Jesus’ instruction exposes that distortion rather than defying God’s command.
Perhaps the most revealing example is the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3–11). This passage is frequently used to suggest that Jesus dismissed the law’s requirements entirely. But a closer reading reveals something very different. The law requires both parties to be judged: “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). Yet only the woman is brought forward. Furthermore, capital cases require the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), and those witnesses must be the first to act in carrying out the judgment (Deuteronomy 17:7). None of these conditions are properly met. The accusers themselves stand in violation of the law they claim to uphold. Jesus responds, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7), exposing their guilt. He does not overturn the law—He upholds its standards and refuses to participate in an unlawful judgment. His final words, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11), affirm that the act itself was indeed sin even though the punishment was not enforced.
Across each of these examples, a consistent pattern emerges. Jesus is not abolishing God’s law. He is confronting the misuse of it. He is stripping away layers of human tradition that obscure its purpose and revealing its true intent. The conflict is not between Jesus and the law, but between Jesus and those who have distorted it. This is consistent with His own words: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets… I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).
The problem, then, is not limited to the first century. It persists today. Many Christians, in their attempt to understand Jesus, rely on interpretations that originate from the very mindset He opposed. They read Scripture through a Pharisaical lens—one that prioritizes tradition, assumption, and surface-level readings over careful examination and obedience.
This should give pause to anyone serious about their faith. If one’s understanding of Jesus aligns more closely with His accusers than with His teachings, something has gone wrong. It is not enough to claim allegiance to Christ while interpreting His actions in a way that contradicts His role as a sinless and obedient servant of God.
The solution is not complicated, but it is demanding. It requires a willingness to question inherited assumptions, to read Scripture in context, and to distinguish between the commandments of God and the traditions of men. It requires humility—the recognition that popular interpretations are not always correct, and that truth is not determined by consensus.
In the end, every reader is faced with a choice. One can continue to interpret Jesus through the lens of those who opposed Him, or one can seek to understand Him on His own terms. That decision will shape not only one’s theology, but one’s entire approach to faith.
Because the difference is not trivial. It is the difference between misunderstanding Christ—and actually following Him.
If you liked this article and want to keep up to date with future posts, you can sign up for my newsletter below. I promise I won’t blow up your inbox.