WHEN WE READ the gospels, it’s easy to see the Pharisees as the villains. They refuse to listen to Jesus; they refuse to acknowledge his authority; they refuse to admit their own hypocrisy. They willfully oppose him at every turn because they don’t want to surrender any of their status as those who supposedly know better than anyone else what the Law of Moses requires of God’s people.

But let’s back up a bit. Not all Pharisees were the same. Nicodemus, remember, was a Pharisee who apparently became a secret disciple of Jesus, as did Joseph of Arimathea. Both men came to take down the body of the crucified Jesus and respectfully prepare it for burial. That was a courageous and risky thing to do, since both were members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council. Later, in the book of Acts, we read of a Pharisee named Gamaliel who took up the cause of the persecuted apostles in a meeting of the Sanhedrin. Using the power of persuasion, he calmed the council down and stopped them from executing Peter and his companions for daring to speak openly of Jesus.

And the apostle Paul, of course, was also a Pharisee, one who became arguably the most influential advocate of the gospel in his time. It’s not as if he had to throw out everything he had learned as a Pharisee after he met Jesus on the Damascus road. Instead, once he had been forced to accept that Jesus was in fact the long-awaited Messiah, all the theological pieces began to fall into place. He finally knew Jesus to be the fulfillment of the people’s hopes and regretted his past unbelief. For Paul, as the saying goes, it wasn’t just I’ll believe it when I see it, but rather, I’ll see it when I believe it.

In other words, even though Jesus constantly had run-ins with Pharisees, it’s not because there was something intrinsically wrong with being a Pharisee. While their rivals, the aristocratic Sadducees, emphasized the centrality of temple worship, the Pharisees emphasized the importance of the Law in a way that made it applicable to everyday life. Considering how the people had suffered exile in the past for their disobedience to the Law, this was an important moral corrective.

Moreover, it could be said that without the Pharisees, Judaism would not have survived the first century. In the year 70 AD, the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and then destroyed the temple. If Judaism had depended solely on temple worship, it may have ceased to exist. But the more democratic emphasis on obedience to the Law in all things allowed Jewish piety to survive in a less centralized way.

ALL OF THIS is background to much of what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, as he challenges the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. In Matthew 5, for example, he repeatedly begins with the phrase “You have heard that it was said,” before describing something the people have been taught. He then immediately counters with “But I tell you,” followed by some corrective teaching that goes even deeper.

But first, he has to settle a bigger issue. How should people take what Jesus says? The people respected the Pharisees as the authoritative interpreters of the Law; they had far more populist appeal than the Sadducees. So if Jesus contradicted the Pharisees, was he bringing a whole new teaching? Indeed, was he daring to overturn the very Law of Moses?

No, Jesus insists:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt 5:17-18, NIV)

Who would think that Jesus had come to overthrow “the Law or the Prophets” — shorthand for the Hebrew Scriptures? He doesn’t say. And up to this point in the gospel, Matthew hasn’t told us about any conflicts between Jesus and the opponents who will show up later in the story. But Matthew has told us how far Jesus’ fame as a healer has spread. Surely the religious leaders had heard about this, and it’s not hard to imagine what skeptical rumors they may have instigated themselves.

If it had been an age of social media, you can bet they would have posted their opinions in multiple ways.

Thus, Jesus sets the stage for what he will say next by squashing rumors and setting a tone. That’s strategically important, because if anyone listening suspects that he is anti-Moses, it will color everything they hear him say.

In essence, then, Jesus begins by reassuring his audience: No, I have no intention of contradicting the Law or the Prophets, whatever you may have heard or been told. Their purpose is eternal, and everything in them must be fulfilled, right down to the least little dot of ink. And that’s what I’m going to do. I am going to teach you what the Law always intended; I’m going to show you what true righteousness is really about. Are you ready to listen?

There’s no way to know for certain, but it’s hard for me to imagine Jesus preaching to such a large crowd without at least some Pharisees being present. And again, if so, the saying “I’ll see it when I believe it” would apply. Some, who were honest seekers like Nicodemus, might have been curious or even eager to hear what Jesus had to say. Some, who came with their suspicions about Jesus, may have been somewhat reassured by his words even as they remained cautious. So far, so good.

As we’ll see, however, what Jesus says next would surely have shocked his listeners, and made some of the Pharisees in the crowd seethe.