Judea in the First Century

2002-06-11

Introduction

First century Judea was filled with various factions that had different takes on their contemporary politics and religion, which caused them to have different expectations of the Messiah. First, there were two different religions: Judaism and its syncretistic offspring, Samaritanism. Jews and Samaritans had enmity between each other, as seen in many passages in the New Testament (cf. John 4:5-30). Within Judaism, there were three schools of thought that were dominant: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The political spectrum ranged from those who supported the Herodian dynasty and the government of the day to those who stirred up rebellion such as ‘the Fourth Philosophy’ and Zealots. The variety found within the Jewish population will determine many different ideologies, theologies, and Messianic expectations by the time Jesus was in His ministry.

Politics of the Day

In 27 B.C., the Roman republic was ruled by an emperor, and the land was divided into provinces. The Hasmonean rulers disappeared as the Herodian dynasty, who were Idumeans, married into them and began to rule. As descendants of the ancient enemies of Israel, the Edomites, the Jews would have longed for a king to come from their own lineage who would rule again (Scott 164). Herod the Great had married into the Hasmonean family, which no longer had the power it had under its former rulers. Though he might have been sensitive to Jewish concerns, he was thoroughly Hellenistic at heart (Scott 95). On the other hand, his cooperation and friendship with Rome brought stability and prosperity to the region. Those whom Herod suspected of plotting against him he executed. The independent rule of Israel had come to an end.

The politicized high priesthood was no longer a lifetime position, but one that changed members rather frequently. Aristocratic families tended to remain in power. For example, Annas, who was a former high priest, still had authority to have a hand in the trial of Jesus (John 18:13, 19-24).

The Sanhedrin was a council of seventy to seventy-one members, mostly from priestly nobility. It was not unique to the Roman period, but had been known in antiquity. Pharisees were incorporated in the council in later times. It was not known how these men were selected, but it was not a democratic process known by Hellenistic thought (Scott 94). They had the most authority of religious law interpretation and had oversight of the Temple. It was an academic institution as well.

Reactions to the Politics of the Day

The religious groups of Intertestamental period and the first century reacted in different ways. The Sadducees generally were all aristocratic (Sanders 318). They were not as strict in keeping the law (Sanders 336), yet more conservative and literalistic in handling the Old Testament (Scott 208). They were the ones that had the most power amongst the Jews, making up most of the Sanhedrin. They were supportive of the Herodian family (Scott 209). Being the ones with the most power along with this supportiveness of the Herodian family, they embraced the status quo of the system in which they lived. Power seemed to be more important than religious life; this can be seen in the life Hyrcanus I. Hyrcanus, when confronted to leave the high priesthood, became a Sadducee. His role as king and high priest was important and he was not happy with any objections (Sanders 380).

The Pharisees were resistant to Hellenism and foreign imperialism (Scott 206). They would have liked to have more power, but because of their lack of support for Herod and Rome, they did not have much political power. They did have effective control over the masses (Sanders 389). Their power was indirect. They believed, as opposed to the Sadducees, in the resurrection, angels and spirits (Acts 23:8), which suggests much about their Messianic expectations. They also were strict on ceremonial cleansing and oral traditions. Given their situation, their focus was less on having political power, as opposed to the Sadducees.

The Essenes, being from another extreme, are not mentioned in the New Testament. Their reaction to the society of their day was to withdrawal; some lived in towns, yet others lived in the wilderness away from society. They lived a communal life while intensely studying the Scriptures. They sent sacrifices to the Temple, but did not go themselves.

Situation of the Priesthood

The corruption in the priesthood began with the latter part of the Hasmonean dynasty. Increasing secularization began with Hyrcanus I, and Aristobulus, who was called Philhellene. This is far different from the anti-Hellenism of the former half of the Hasmonean dynasty. Into the first century, Sadducees were mainly the ones in power and who were in the priesthood, as they were more sympathetic to the Herodians and to Rome. The deterioration of the priesthood and the Temple also can be seen in Matthew 21:12 when Jesus is driving out moneychangers and those selling animals, as it had become a ‘den of thieves.’

Messianic Expectations

Groups like the Sadducees typically reject the concept of the Messiah (Scott 310). Most of the times the Sadducees are mentioned in the New Testament, they are equated with their lack of belief in the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-32). As mentioned before, they lack the belief in the supernatural such as angels, so this rejection of the Messianic concept is understandable. Such a group would not want to believe in such a king because they were comfortable and content as rulers themselves.

The Pharisees, the Essenes, and common folk would want to believe in the Messiah, for it was their hope to be set free from the Romans and Roman supporters. The Qumran community expected more than one military leader that would consummate the times they lived in.

Most importantly, a warrior king was in sight that would end the oppression of Gentile rule. They expected a new covenant, a re-gathering of their people abroad, a king from the line of David, and the driving out and judgment on the Romans that had domination over the entire world. Some expected one from the line of Levi who would be a priest. They were expecting the dramatic changes that the prophets spoke of that they might be free from the status they had in the Roman world. Most importantly, however, they expected a Messiah that would conform to their own concepts of holiness. For example, in Luke 11:38, a Pharisee is shocked to find that Jesus does not wash His hands in a manner proper for Pharisees. Again, in Matthew 12:2, when Jesus’ disciples were plucking grain on the Sabbath, they scold Him for what was supposedly unlawful.

Divisions and Debates of the Messianic Expectation

The Pharisees, who were particularly interested in matters of marriage and divorce (Scott 205), approached Jesus with matters of divorce. In Matthew 19:3ff, Jesus thwarted their argument that divorce was permissible in any circumstance. In Mark 7:3-4, the Pharisees are seen as very serious on cleansing of hands and vessels when eating meals. Therefore, it shocked them to see that Jesus did not follow this ritual. The Sadducees, in all the Synoptic gospels, are seen confronting Jesus on issues of the resurrection of the dead for that is something that they do not believe in. Though not in the gospels, Paul uses this doctrine to divide the Sanhedrin that accuses him (Acts 23, cf. Matthew 22:34). The Pharisees and the Sadducees use what rituals and beliefs they have to use against the ministry of Jesus.

In Matthew 22:16, it is seen that Pharisees and Herodians collaborate to trap Jesus in His speech. These two groups are not normally groups that would collaborate, given that their political affiliation, so to speak, was very different. Yet, at the same time, all groups tend to gather together against Jesus, the Messiah in which they hoped for. However, as Scott notes, the Pharisees also often are attracted to Jesus and also believe in Him (Scott 204). The Sadducees, who seem to lack belief in supernatural things, tend not to react to Him in any positive way.

From Herodians to revolutionaries, the Jewish people have a lot of diversity that directs their belief about the Messiah. Their concept of what it means to be pious was shattered indefinitely when Jesus rejected their traditions. The concept of military revolution, that the Messiah would conquer, fell when Jesus did not drive out the Romans. Jesus in Matthew 5:13ff would counter the Essenes’ reaction of retreat to Qumran in unholy times, and He openly condemns the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This is because that these people from the first century relied on human wisdom, and hardened their hearts in light of their own positions in a troubled world.

We do the same thing today. Politics, power, and doctrine divide us the same way today. But we must remember that the Kingdom of God will not function in any way like this world does. Our compromising the Gospel today is very similar to religious compromise in first century Judea. In the west, we think the spread of democracy will solve all of the world’s problems. We seek comfortable lives and often forget that there is more to reality than the status quo. This is the message that Jesus brings to us, and He wants to see everybody turn away from these phony belief systems and trust in Him alone. Jesus came to earth, knowing that He would be mutilated and murdered, just so we could be reconciled to God. He sought something greater through all of this suffering: that though He would die a terrible death, He would rise from the tomb three days later and sit on the right hand of God until His return in the future (Psalm 110:1). God does not want anything from us; He already owns everything in heaven and on earth because He made all of these things. He does not need anything; He is complete on His own. He is waiting for everyone to hear about His Son so that we will turn to Him and be healed and have eternal life.

Bibliography

Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE. London: SCM Press, 1992.

Scott, J. Julius Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.