Jesus and the Religious Elite of First Century Palestine
My upbringing as a Mennonite, studying at Eastern Mennonite University, particularly on the Middle East cross-cultural, and my experience volunteering now at Nazareth Village have all given rise to the perception that people of faith throughout the ages have had various ideas about who God is and how we ought to live in response. As I have studied to be a tour guide at Nazareth Village, I have learned more about the various sects or parties that were prominent within the Jewish community in the time of Jesus. I became increasingly interested in the two elite parties, the Pharisees and Sadducees, whom Jesus often rebukes. I wanted to learn more about their role in society, their beliefs, and behaviors that set them apart from other people. But what's more, I wanted to explore why Jesus rebuked them, and on the flip side, what they would've thought about Jesus, given these things. I wondered what the implications of Jesus' message would have been for them, and why they perceived him as a threat. Being a believer and a citizen in what is today's Roman Empire, I also sought to discover possible implications of Jesus' admonition of the religious authorities for the western Church today.
In this paper, I will begin to look at the history of the Jewish leaders, including the origins of the Sanhedrin, the priesthood, and the formation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I will discuss their lifestyles and behavior and then recall the Gospel stories involving the Pharisees and Sadducees in order to bring to light where he found fault with them. Then I will strive to clarify the reason these authorities were threatened by Jesus. Finally, I will reflect on possible implications for the western Church today.
Origins of the Sanhedrin
In the early years after God worked through Moses and his siblings to lead the people out of Egypt, God instructs Moses to, "Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel... and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, so that they might stand there with you...and they shall help bear the burden of the people" (Numbers 11:16). This group of elders, called the Sanhedrin by the time of Jesus, was to act like lawyers and judges, to read and interpret the Law for the people and decide how to carry it out.
Origins of the Priesthood
The scriptures explain that the Israelite people begin to complain and forget God. Seeing the need for additional leadership, God appoints Aaron as priest, and all his descendants, including the whole tribe of Levi as their helpers. The priesthood was given as a gift to them. They were instructed to come before God on behalf of the people to perform the duties of the sanctuary and of the altar behind the curtain to atone for the sins of the people. They were to be set apart for the Lord as servants, to keep themselves pure for the Lord (Numbers 8: 1-8).
As time moves toward the first century, the biblical narrative tells us that much of the people of Israel forgot God and disobeyed the instructions God had set before them, the priests being no exception. According to Israelite tradition the land was divided among the tribes, with the exception of the priestly tribe of Levi (Numbers 8:8-25 and Deut. 18: 1-8). Their inheritance was not land, but God. The priests were supposed to survive by obtaining an equitable share of the sacrifices given to God from the peasantry. The Israelites were instructed to give to the priests, "the first fruits of your grain, your wine, and your oil, as well as the first of the fleece of your sheep...For the Lord your God has chosen Levi out of all of your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for all time." But the reality was that as early as the Babylonian exile, some priests already owned significant plots of land and wealth (Crossan 250).
Origins of the Pharisees and Sadducees
Right before the Romans acquired Palestine as part of their empire, the Jews were ruled by the Hasmonean Maccabee family who had led the revolt against the previous oppressive Hellenist rulers, and established their own dynasty, placing themselves into a merged role of King and High Priest. To gain legitimacy they falsely claimed Aaronic succession and allied themselves with the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (Stegemann 128-129). But as the decades past, infighting exploded within the Hasmonean family, largely over issues of power, but also over questions about what their Hasmonean Kingdom should be like. Some of the brothers thought like the Pharisees, and others thought like the Sadducees, the two prominent parties at the time (Connolly 8).
Origins of the Pharisees and Sadducees
Legend goes that during the reign of Solomon, a Pharisee teacher Antigonus Soko, who was the successor of Simon the Just, taught his students the motto: "Be not like the servants who serve their masters for the sake of wages, but be rather like those who serve without thought of receiving wages." Two of their pupils, Boethus and Zadok later repeated this maxim to their pupils. They understood this motto to express the belief that there was neither a future world nor a resurrection of the dead and renounced the Torah. Zadok and Boethus founded the Sadducee sect together with their student followers and lived in luxurious splendor, "using silver and golden vessels all their lives," not because they were haughty they said, but because there would be nothing in the world to come. They pitied and mocked the Pharisees who worked so hard for no reward (Sadducees).
The origins of the Pharisees are unclear, but they were connected to the scribes (those who read, interpreted and copied the scriptures). They would have been those students under the teacher Soko who followed the traditional interpretation of his motto: "Good should be done for its own sake and evil be avoided, out of devotion to God" (Pharisees). They set themselves up as anti-Sadducee, seeing themselves as a reformist type group that secured the institution of tradition (Pharisees). They attempted to influence ruling circles, not hesitating to make alliances to accomplish their aims to integrate their ideas into society (Stegemann 156).
In the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were an aristocracy of blood, whose members included nobility, the high priests, priests, Levites, as well as rich landowners, wealthy courtiers and merchants (Connolly 30). They favored Hellenization, and saw no need for the Israelites to be a nation set apart from the others. They saw syncretism as the guarantee of success and survival of their people. They believed that God was distant, and did not care about the daily lives of the people; there was no future world, so they need not be concerned with consequences of sin; the enjoyment of this life is the goal of man; the literal translation and execution of the Law was all that was necessary; and the Priesthood held the highest sanctity as the selected ones of God (30).
In comparison, the Pharisees were an aristocracy of the learned. Their followers were scribes, bureaucrats, officials, but only those who pledged themselves to the strict observance of Levitical Law. They vehemently opposed Hellenization, and saw syncretism as the reason for their previous captivity. They believed that God was engaged and deeply concerned with the daily lives of the people; there would be a final judgment and deliverance; the goal of man was righteousness and communion with God; sin was to be avoided through observation of the whole Mosaic Law with their additions; and that all Israelites, under their leadership, should attain the same level of sanctity as practiced by the high priests (Pharisees).
The differences of opinion between these two parties represent the thoughts and beliefs amongst the broader scope of people in the Second Temple period, while the majority believed more similarly to the Pharisees (Pharisees). Civil war broke out as the Hasmoneans fought each other for power (Connolly 10). When a group of leading Pharisees pleaded with Pompey to intervene and depose the Hasmonean regime altogether, he saw an opportunity to acquire the Hasmonean Kingdom as part of their Empire (10). The Romans took over then in 63BC, first using the Hasmoneans with Pharisee supporters as political pawns to gradually gain full control (10). But shortly there after, Herod the Great, who was part Jew and an in-law of the previous ruling Jewish family, rose to "sole dominion as a vassal of Rome" (Stegemann 130). He largely eliminated the previous high priesthood and upper stratum (the Hasmoneans and their friends) to form his own ruling house (130). Since he could not appoint himself as high priest he gave the high priesthood and seats in the Sanhedrin to Sadducees who would loyally serve his interests (and therefore, those of Rome). Whenever they didn't serve his interests he deposed and replaced them with those who would (Stegemann 130).
Religion, politics and wealth were inseparable under Herodian and Roman rule. For example, seats of power in the Sanhedrin as well as the high priesthood were now in the hands of Sadducees, wealthy Jews who were allied with those at the top of the Empire's social pyramid (Stegemann 131). Even the Temple, the center of Judaic religious practice, illustrated the intermeshing of these three.
The Temple built by Herod in Jerusalem is considered his crowning achievement as "king of the Jews." He doubled the Temple Mount constructed by Solomon, and surrounded the entire area with a massive retaining wall on all four sides, using colossal stones, some as big as 40 feet in length, over 10 feet high, and 14 feet thick. The stones used for the walls shone under the sunlight, as though made of expensive marble. At each corner, there was a tower, from which priests and Levites could keep watch, and sound the trumpets to announce the Sabbath (Crossan 238). There were several different entrances into the Temple, each one for different social classes. Each entrance had Levitical guards under the high priest's command charged to control the flow of the crowds and bar suspected troublemakers. The Temple Mount was accessible to the aristocratic priests living in the Upper City through a special walkway leading directly into the sanctuary, or Court of Priests while most pilgrims entered through the south entrance (243).
Upon entry, the Court of the Gentiles was open to all, both Gentile and Jew, male and female, but a short stone barrier barred non-Jews from entering any further, by penalty of death (Crossan 239). The next inner layer was divided into three sections, the Court of Women, the Court of the Israelites (where men brought their offerings), and the Court of Priests (where the priests sacrificed on the altar) (240). Inside the Court of Priests, behind the altar, was the Holy of Holies, into which only the high priest could enter through the curtains on the Day of Atonement (240).
On either side of the Temple Mount were the Royal Stoa and the Antonia Fortress. The Royal Stoa housed the commercial aspects of the Temple, used as the place where money for the Temple tax was changed, adding rigid structure to the collection of the tithe. Animals could be purchased here to be sacrificed (Crossan 241). The Antonia Fortress, named after Marc Anthony, was a military fortress that allowed oversight, immediate intervention, and therefore complete control over whatever went on in the Temple Mount. The high priests vestments were even kept by the Roman procurators here and given back to him for festivals, "only after they could be sure that the crowds were under proper control" (241). Clearly the design of the entire Temple was hierarchical, but it also confused religious purity laws with imperial occupation.
The Jewish religious elite, both Pharisees and Sadducees, mimicked Roman civic order in the way they lived, ate, and viewed people of the lower class. The religious elite in Jerusalem lived in the Upper City with their Roman counterparts in luxurious villas, free of images, but full of things found in the Roman world, from the tile floors to expensive pottery. Their construction employed building techniques, materials, and styles similar to those in the Temple, perhaps to link their houses to the divine. Even implements of purity, like the miqwaoth (ritual baths) were made into luxury items, imitating the lives of their Roman counterparts (Crossan 244).
Though on a lesser grand scale, the elite living in Sepphoris used their houses to articulate their place on the top of Galilee's social scale by decorating their houses with expensive things like frescoes, mosaics, and red roof tiles. The walls, as can be seen from the first century ruins at Sepphoris, were well constructed in evenly-shaped limestone ashlars, suggesting the use of skilled craftsmen, as compared to the simple, family-built houses of Capernaum (Crossan 121). They, like the elite in Jerusalem, made their homes look like monuments by using pillars, white plaster, and mosaics in green and red geometric patterns imitative of the marble paneling in many of Herod's palaces, displaying their wealth in the fashion of their own occupiers (Crossan 149).
Not only did the religious elite and wealthy Jews mimic their Roman counterparts in their houses, but also in many other aspects of their daily lives. For example, they participated in imperial celebrations and gave public handouts to establish alliances and secure their own honor and prestige. Furthermore, it was Roman policy to have the Jewish leaders, perhaps from the Sanhedrin, collecting the Roman taxes, to put a Jewish face on their occupation (Stegemann 118). Also like the Roman elite, they despised peasant society, and deemed them simple and worthless because they were poor (Crossan 54).
Social hierarchy was also displayed through the dining practices of the religious elite. Hosting dinner parties was another way to flaunt their wealth and status, and maintain alliances, while others could watch jealously through their big dining room windows. Just like at the dinner tables in the Roman world, dinner guests would gather around the table in descending social order, with the guests of honor sitting at the right and left of the host. Those in the inner circle would lounge and have to be served by several attendants.
A Look At The Gospels
The Gospel writers record several of Jesus' encounters with Pharisees and Sadducees. In many of them, Jesus rebukes these religious leaders for missing the point, for abusing the Law for their own personal gain, mimicking the societal structures of the Roman Empire, and corrupting the people through their example of greed and hypocrisy. The Gospel writers also highlight Jesus' new vision of the Kingdom of God, and how it threatened the societal structures upon which these religious elite derived their exploitative powers.
Jesus' Inauguration, Luke 4: 18-26
Jesus gets straight to the point as he announces the beginning of his public ministry in his home town of Nazareth. As we see the Gospel story unfold more, it becomes clear that this passage from Isaiah 61 served to highlight God's purposes in the world through him: Mercy, justice, restoration, healing, and deliverance.
After he read the passage from Isaiah, it is written that the people were pleased with the gracious words he had spoken, but not for long. Right after he said, "this has been fulfilled in my reading of it," he rebukes their unspoken desire for a sign and tells them that "no prophet is accepted in his home town." Perhaps Jesus remembered here Hosea's call to repentance when he proclaimed that God desires "the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings," (Hosea 6:6). He continues to point out that the only two people who received a blessing from the Lord during the ministry of the prophets Elijah and Elisha were Gentiles, those deemed unrighteous by any standard at the time. These two people, one a poor widow and the other a powerful Syrian official, had acknowledged these prophets as servants of God and followed their instructions out of faith, for which they were blessed by God. In this, he challenges his audience's perception of righteousness, showing that the God's people are marked not by their blood but by acts of humble faith in God.
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Matthew 21: 33-46
Jesus uses the common symbols to point out the corruption of the religious leaders and illuminate the meaning of faithfulness to God. He tells the story of a landowner who cultivates a vineyard with all the necessities, and then rents it out to tenants who are to take care of the vines and then surrender fruit to the landowner at the time of harvest. But when it comes time for the harvest, the landowner sends his servants and slaves to collect the fruit, but the tenants abuse and kill them, including the landowner's own son in hopes that they could steal his inheritance. Jesus asks his audience, "What will happen to the tenants?" and the people reply, "The landowner will [depose them] and lease the vineyard to tenants who will give him the produce at harvest time."
The prophets often used the image of a vineyard as a symbol for God's Kingdom, and the vines as the people who were to produce good fruit for the Lord. We are told that the Pharisees who were listening knew he had spoken about them, that they were the "tenants" in charge of caring for the people. But the qualities of the leaders in this story are greed and corruption, and Jesus tells us that just like the tenants in the story, God's Kingdom will be taken away from them and given to those who produce fruit for the Kingdom. The Pharisees were clearly threatened by his teaching and begin to think about ways to arrest him.
Jesus Eats And Heals On The Sabbath, Matthew 12: 1-14
Again, Jesus confronts his Jewish audience with God's utmost desires for His people, rebuking the leaders for their abuse of the Law and missing the point. The first principle Jesus presents is simple, and illustrated by David's experience with the priests and the showbread - human need is more important that observing ceremonial rituals. Jesus also points out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who ignore the fact that the priests themselves break the Sabbath laws, and yet are blameless. He says, "Some thing greater than the temple is here," perhaps again recalling the words of Hosea 6:6 when he asks for their acknowledgement of God over the Law. He also rebukes them for their lack of understanding God's deeper desires, saying "If you knew what it meant, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the [innocent that follow me]. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." In other words, Jesus declares that he is the new covenant between God and the people. After this declaration, he heals a man on the Sabbath who had a withered hand, showing that compassion and mercy are not against the law, but fulfill it.
Jesus Cleanses The Temple, Matt. 21:12-17
Just a few days before he was crucified, Jesus foretells his death for a third time as they travel towards Jerusalem (Matt. 20: 17-19). When he entered Jerusalem, he headed for the temple. As if performing an exorcism, Jesus "drove out" those who were selling and buying there and overturned the tables of the moneychangers. Casting out these people was effectively shutting down the temple system. Temple practice could not be done without it. Perhaps more importantly, it was from this hierarchical temple system that the Sadducees derived their wealth and authority and the establishment to which the Pharisees placed their hope. In his rage, Jesus quotes from the prophet Jeremiah, who said that the temple should be a "house of prayer, not a den of robbers," and begins healing the blind and lame. In by-passing the priests, he mocks their attempt to control when, how, and to whom God's blessing is bestowed. The priests' societal power is threatened as Jesus brings God into personal relationship with whoever believes, and they become angry when they hear people call him the "Son of David," a title of authority and kingship, of the Messiah foretold by Jeremiah (23:5-6). Their plans to arrest and kill him soon follow.
Implications of Jesus' Message and Ministry on the Elite
The implications of Jesus' message and ministry would have been world-shaking for the religious authorities. Firstly, his alternative vision of a non-hierarchical Kingdom of God threatened their societal power. Many groups, likely including but not limited to Jesus' followers, considered much of the priesthood lacking in holiness and purity and were skeptical of their current Temple system that legitimized their power. Secondly, being a part of this Kingdom of God meant they would have to forgo expecting to be served and share their table with the low-born and vulgar with no expectation of return. The fact that Jesus, whom they called the Christ, washed the feet of his followers and broke bread with the unclean and unrighteous illuminated their tyranny and their assimilation to the exploitative practices of their own occupiers. According to the perspective of the elite, Jesus was creating a movement for change amongst the people that had to be stopped.
Implications for the Church Today
As believers in what is today's Roman Empire, Jesus' call of repentance and his vision of a different kind of Kingdom also has powerful implications for us as well. It seems clear that if we: 1) View establishment values as essentially Christ-like values, 2) Place our focus on institutions rather than the needs of people, 3) Are interested in self-preservation at the expense of others, 4) Make alliances with establishment out of self interest, 5) Are interested in preserving the status quo at the expense of the poor and downtrodden, and 6) View change activists negatively and distance ourselves from them, we are aligning ourselves with the Pharisees and/or Sadducees and seriously misrepresenting God and God's Kingdom.
Just like the Sadducees and Pharisees who mimicked the Roman societal order, the Church today has also assimilated to the world. But unlike the Jewish peasants of the first century, we are not physically held captive, but ours is one we consent to willingly. We vigorously defend it as right and proper, and distance ourselves from change activists who threaten the comfortable alliances we have made with powerful religious and political institutions. The wide use and acceptance of The Apostles Creed as a sufficient expression of our commitment to Jesus is an excellent example of how the Church at large has sanitized and minimized the teachings of God's servants (the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus) by excluding any reflection of what Jesus did between his divine birth and death. It leaves the status quo unquestioned, and the rich and powerful comfortable and undisturbed while millions are poor and disempowered.
When we are challenged by those calling for justice, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees, "we warn of the danger of confusing the gospel with social action and remind everyone that the Church's mission is personal salvation" (Stutzman 92). As Stuart Fowler once said, "The tragedy is that many of us see nothing wrong with this; We do not see that [we are enmeshed] in a profound worldliness and that the peace, security, and privilege we enjoy has been gained at the expense of a serious reduction of the world-shaking, life-encompassing biblical...gospel to a mutilated private gospel of personal piety and morality robbed of its power to challenge the world" (Stutzman 92). We must repent of these things and pursue a more faithful witness to our Lord that acknowledges God as Sovereign, restores dignity, justice, and hope for the downtrodden, and brings healing and rights our relationships as the Ancient of Days intended it to.
Works Cited
Connolly, Peter. Living in the Time of Jesus of Nazareth. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Crossan, John Dominic and Jonathan L. Reed. Excavating Jesus: Beneathe the Stones Behind the Texts. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Kohler, Kauffman. "Pharisees." JewishEncyclopedia.com. The Kopeland Foundation. 2002. 20 March 2008. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=252&letter=P&search=Pharisees.
Stegemann, Ekkehard W. and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
Stutzman, Linford. With Jesus In The World. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992.
Tara Kreider volunteered at Nazareth Village for one year. Tara's main responsibility was tour guiding along with seminary and Arabic studies. Tara is from Harrisonburg, VA and is a graduate of Eastern Mennonite University.