RSS

Tag Archives: Israel

The Sects of 1st Century Jews – Sadducees

The Sadducees came from the affluent sections of society, their members mainly belonging to the priestly class (Acts 4:1; 5:17). It is generally assumed that the title of Tsadokim in Hebrew (Saddukaioi in Greek) indicates a connection with the line of the High Priest Zadok (from the time of King David). As in the case of the Pharisees, their main ideological opponents, the actual origins of the Sadducees remain unclear.

Their doctrines were based exclusively upon the Written Law. Unlike the Pharisees, they did not treat the interpretations of the Oral Law as binding. They denied the resurrection of the dead, immortality of the soul and the world to come (Acts 23:6-8). According to their belief, biblical Scriptures offered no basis for belief in the resurrection of the dead, a matter on which they approached Jesus – “Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to him and asked him” (Luke 20:27 and parallels).

The Sadducees thus differed greatly from the Pharisees, in their way of thinking but equally in their attitude towards the common people. During the final Temple period the Sadducees, who included the chief priests and the elders supervising Temple worship, were identified with the aristocracy and sought to ingratiate themselves with the Roman rulers by collaborating with them in keeping the population quiescent and obedient. They were consequently less popular than the Pharisees with the ordinary people.

The NT records the frictions between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Paul’s imprisonment highlighted the divisions between the two groups: ” ‘Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!’ And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection – and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” (Acts 23:6-8). In spite of these differences, John the Baptist confronted both Sadducees and Pharisees by calling them “brood of vipers” and challenged them to “bear fruit”, namely repentance among the people (Matt 3:7-11).

Unlike the Pharisees, who regularly debated important religious issues with Jesus, the Sadducees typically avoided confrontation. Only on one occasion did the Sadducees approach Jesus, together with the Pharisees, to demand a sign from heaven (Matt 16:1).

As the Sadducees were in charge of the Temple they must have been bewildered and alarmed when Jesus said: “not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matt 24:2) and “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days” (Matt 26:61). These apparent threats to the Temple could have been among the reasons why the Sadducees, as defenders of public order, wished to have Jesus executed (Matt 26:3-4). After the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, the Sadducees disappeared, while the Pharisees continued to represent mainstream Judaism.

Advertisements
 
3 Comments

Posted by on July 2, 2012 in Church History

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Sects of 1st Century Jews – Zealots

I would like to introduce a short series which briefly examines the Jewish traditions from which Christianity emerged. It will begin with the Zealots.

Josephus refers to the Zealots as the “fourth Jewish philosophy,” founded by Judas the Galilean (in 6 A.D.); he strongly contends that all succeeding troubles including the burning of the Temple can be traced to his teaching.  It should be noted that Josephus, who had turned to the Romans, is most certainly offering a politically acceptable assessment of these sworn enemies of Rome that he calls “bandits.” It is difficult to discover reliable information about the zealots when Josephus, who opposed them bitterly, is the primary, if not only source.

Josephus relates that the name “zealot” was self-ascribed by this Jewish sect, “for Zealots they called themselves, as if they were devoted to good works, not zealous for all that was vile, vile beyond belief.” (Wars IV.161). The designation has frequently come to be used of all who rebelled against Rome with force.

The movement was both religious and political. One might describe the Zealots as a sect very much preoccupied with Jewish nationalism. The common ground for all the Jewish parties was the Torah. But unlike the Pharisees or Sadducees, the Zealots offered no new conception of the Law; they were not out to interpret it, just to fight for it. They would assert that the Law demanded YHWH be only king that the Jews acknowledged and that they should establish His reign by rooting out paganism and by breaking from the tyranny of Rome. The Torah made separation from Gentiles necessary, exalted Israel as the chosen of God, and promised triumph. The zealots sought to enforce these beliefs by violence of any kind.

The Zealots favored armed rebellion against Rome. They held to the idea that Roman rule was incompatible with Jewish freedom, and that the Jews should be free of Roman control. This culminated, eventually in an actual revolt, the Great Jewish Revolt. Zealots, especially those in the Iudaea Province, captured Jerusalem and were able to hold it until 70 CE. Rome eventually retook Jerusalem, leading to the destruction of the Second Temple.

The Zealots do not figure prominently in the biblical records, but there are references to them. One of the twelve, Simon Zelotes (Mark 3:18) was possibly a Zealot at one point. Barabbas was likely a zealot; the term used to describe him in John 18:40 is the same word used by Josephus to describe the Zealots.

Jesus never openly refers to the Zealots. His statement that men try to take the kingdom by force (Matthew 11:12) has been interpreted as a criticism of such misguided zeal. Whether it refers to the Zealots or not is debated.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 30, 2012 in Church History

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,