A Brief Look at the Religious Authorities and Sects of New Testament Times

Throughout the New Testament, Christ repeatedly interacted with multiple religious rulers, sects, and groups. Christ often rebuked them for their error, but there were many times that He held their teachings in great esteem. Most of these institutions have histories dated centuries before the time of time of Christ's Incarnation. By studying the origin, theology, and influence of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, Essenes, and Zealots, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of the New Testament and its specific relation to these institutions.

Historical evidence lacks perspicuity regarding the specific beginning of the Pharisees; many Biblical scholars concur that Pharisaism made its initial appearance in the days of Ezra the Scribe, approximately 400 B.C. It was during the "Period of the Sopherim,"[1] that Ezra led Israel in a nationwide return to the Scriptures. The primary interpreters and scholars of the Torah during this time were known as the Sopherim, and many claim that the Pharisees originated from this group. Other scholars aver for a later date, but it is agreed on that by the time of John Hyrcanus[2] the Pharisees were a well-recognized religious body, approximately 6,000 in number,[3] and often made judgments regarding the people and the keeping of the Law.[4] In that era, the Pharisees were known as a reactionist movement against the Hellenization imposed by their Greek captors. They were a division of the larger Hasidim separatist[5] movement and were noted as being the antagonists of the sect of the Sadducees. They continued in their quest for purity, piety, and adherence to the Scripture. The Pharisees are most often recognized as a one whole religious institution, but it is often overlooked that they had divided into two schools of tradition: the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, respectively named after the men who led each group[6]. By the time of Christ, the Pharisees had developed into more than a group of pious lay individual's seeking purity of the Scriptures-they wholly embraced a pedantic adherence to both oral and written[7] tradition and attempted to impose their beliefs on all Israel.

The Pharisees were fervent adherents to the absolute authority of Scripture. It was that belief which spurred their zeal to impose the minutia of the Law and later eventuated in the addition of their own traditions which was ultimately an extrapolation from their original focus on the Scriptures. Their eschatological theology vastly differed from their acclaimed opponents, the Sadducees: The Pharisees believed in the resurrection and in eternal life while the Sadducees did not-a disagreement which the New Testament specifically refers to.[8]

When Alexandra succeeded her husband Janneus in 76-67 B.C. as the foreign ruler over the Jews, she reinstated mandatory Jewish adherence to the h` patroa paradosij("traditions of the fathers"), and thus initiated an era of great political authority of the Pharisees. Though their political authority nearly disappeared under Roman rule, the Pharisees were still nationally reputed for both their past political prestige and current religious authority during the time of Christ. As part of the Sanhedrin, they were obviously still a major part of the religious upper echelon of the day.

The Pharisees were often accurate and precise in their both judgment and interpretation of the Scripture. Contrary to contemporary speculation, it was not so much the teachings of the Pharisees that Jesus opposed, but it was the attitude with which they imposed and followed their teachings that Christ rebuked. When Christ condemned the Pharisees in Matthew 23:2-16, He was not condemning their teachings, but was rebuking them for imposing their traditions on others while they themselves refused to obey![9] Again, in Luke 11:39,[10] Christ condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy in devoting their zeal to an outward religious appearance rather than to their inner posture before God.

It is important that today's students of the Scripture recognize that the error of the Pharisees rested not in their traditions, but in their hypocritical neglect of the very commands they so rigorously demanded the common man to adhere to! It must be realized any who demands righteousness yet himself rejects it is in danger of the very same woes which Christ so severely prescribed to the Pharisees.

Like Pharisees, there is obscurity in the historical background of the Sadducees. Some consider the Sadducees' origin to be dated around the time of King David and their name derived from Zadok the priest; others propose a later date around the second century B.C and the name derived from another Zadoc, leader of the Sanhedrin.[11] Others suggest that the name originated from the Hebrew root which means righteousness.[12] Regardless, by the time of John Hyrcanus, the Sadducees were recognized for being in conflict with the Pharisees. While both sects sought adherence to the Scriptures, the Sadducees rejected the Pharisees dedication to oral tradition and recognized only the Torah as Scripture. While both the Pharisees and Sadducees were reactions to the oppressive Hellenization, the Sadducees were more willing to adopt the Hellenistic practices and were more lenient in their enforcement of tradition.

The main areas of theological difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees were the Sadducees' refusal to accept the rabbinical interpretations of the Hebrew Scripture, their rejection of the absolute authority of Scripture, and their refusal to follow the oral traditions. The Sadducees also differed in their belief about the resurrection and spiritual immortality. Some sources argue that the Sadducees did not believe in angels or in spirits at all; yet others maintain that the Sadducees did not reject their existence, but only rejected human claims of visions or sightings of angels and spirits. However, their rejection of the resurrection is quite clear. [13]

Under Alexandra's government, the Sadducees were also elevated as the prestigious political and religious leaders of the Jewish people. Their organization was more aristocratic, and their wealth was greater than the Pharisees. They too were regarded as the religious authorities in Jesus' day and comprised an important part of the Sanhedrin. It is also thought that many of the High Priests belonged to the sect of the Sadducees.[14]

Christ most often addressed the Sadducees in conjunction with the Pharisees. Often His words were harsh, as in Matthew 3:7, where Christ calls them a "generation of vipers." They were, like the Pharisees, guilty of hypocritically parading themselves as religious authorities. Christ also breaks down their argument for no resurrection by using the Torah-the only part of the Old Testament which they accepted as Scripture- to refute their claim that there was no resurrection. Understanding the difference between their beliefs and the beliefs of the Pharisees also sheds light on Paul's cunning escape tactic in Acts 23:6 when he used their disagreement about the resurrection to distract them.

The Sanhedrin professed ties to the council that Moses' father-in-law advised him to call together to help him judge Israel.[15] Whether or not the Sanhedrin maintained a lasting presence throughout Israel's history is debatable. Zadokite fragments show that by 196 B.C., the Sanhedrin was the supreme authority in religious matters.[16] During the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin was composed of the Sadducees and Pharisees, and essentially functioned as the Supreme Court of the Jews. The requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin were blamelessness, fatherhood, previous positions as judges, and education in law, sciences, and language. The three distinctive offices of president, vice-president, and sage were filled by election. The Sanhedrin acted as the puppet government over the Jews during the Roman reign, though it was at liberty to exercise the traditional Law as it complied with Roman law.

Being comprised of both Pharisees and Sadducees, it would seem that the Sanhedrin would have been constantly battling internal struggles; yet the Sanhedrin functioned more as a political-religious body than a theological-religious body, and dealt mainly with ecclesiastical law.[17]

The Sanhedrin was most definitely the greatest jurisdictive influence over the Jews during the time of Christ. Certainly, the trial and crucifixion of Christ testify of this. The Sanhedrin seemed to have even more sway over the people than the Roman proconsul did.[18]

The King James Version uses the word "council" to represent the Sanhedrin. Most notably, the council is mentioned in connection with the trial and crucifixion of Christ. [19] The Sanhedrin was also involved in the arrest of Peter,[20] the martyr of Stephen,[21] and the many trials of Paul.[22] It seems to have died out around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Recognizing the mixture of religious beliefs within the Sanhedrin brings a fuller understanding to passages noting the controversy between the two sects.

Both the Essenes and Pharisees originated as extremist branches off of the Pharisees. They Essenes broke away from the Pharisees between 150 and 140 B.C., [23] and lived a monastically. Though they are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament, their existence was confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, which they are responsible for compiling and preserving. The Zealots began to be recognized as a group after the birth of Christ. Like the Essenes, they were a reaction against contemporary Pharisaism, but were more forceful in making their presence known as they tried to revolutionize the Jewish community and take over the Roman governement. Historically, they were best known for their stand off at Masada, where they were the last remaining Jewish stronghold to fall in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Like the first Pharisees, both the Essenes and the Zealots sought purity and piety. The Essenes were ascetic in their approach, living disciplined, quiet lives. The Zealots desired to bring in redemption through the Messiah, but believed that it could only come if they overthrew the Roman government. They did not believe they were subject to the authority of Caesar or Roman government.

Both the Essenes and the Zealots gained strong Jewish followings during their short-lived existence. But it was the Zealots who had the greatest influenced. As they repeatedly tried to revolt against the Roman government, their following increased. It is thought that their zeal and rebellion hasted the Roman destruction of the Jews in A.D. 70.[24]

Although neither group is specifically addressed in the New Testament, it is thought that John the Baptist may have been influenced by the Essenes during his younger years. The Gospels also name the apostle Simon as "Simon the Zealot."[25] Other Biblical scholars would also suggest that Judas Iscariot was a part of the Zealots.[26]

Simply realizing the existence of each of these groups helps any student of the Scripture gain a better understanding of the politico-religious situation of New Testament times, and also aids in understanding the ways that Jesus, the apostles, and the Scriptures address the first century audience. With a better understanding of the applicability to the first century believers, modern believers can principilize the same truths and obtain a greater applicability to their own lives, as well as a better understanding of the New Testament as a whole.

Bock, Daryl. Studying the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2002.

Dockery, David, et. al., Foundations for Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994.

Finkelstein, Louis. Pharisaism in the Making. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1972.

Freeman, James M. Manners and Customs of the Bible. Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1996.

Gower, Ralph. The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times. Chicago: Moody Press, 1987.

Herford, R. Travers The Pharisees. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1924.

Josephus, Flavius. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

Pfeiffer, Charles. Between the Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959.

Varner, William C. Jesus and the Pharisees: A Jewish Perspective. available fromwww.pfo.org/pharisee.htm, November 2005

[1] A scribe such as Ezra was referred to as a "sopher." Ezra's emphasis on the need to study and translate the Torah spurred an increase in the number of men who dedicated themselves to this task, and thus that era in Israel's history came to be termed the "Period of the Sopherim." (R. Travers Herford, The Pharisees [New York: The MacMillan Company, 1924], 20).

[2] Approximately 100 B.C.

[3] Ralph Gower, The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987), 257.

[4] Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 439.

[5] It is fitting to note that the Hebrew word from which the Greek word for Pharisees ­(Öáñéóáé͂ïò) is derived has a root which means "separate." These "separated ones" were known for their piety and adherence to purity. (Geoffrey W Bromiley., et. al., ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 3: K-P. [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986], 822).

[6] The Shammai were stricter and approached the Scripture more rigidly than the Hillel On the other hand, the Hillel allow a looser approach to imposing and following the Law. Most likely, it was the strict practices of the Shammai Pharisees that Jesus harshly rebuked. (William Varner, Jesus and the Pharisees: A Jewish Perspective www.pfo.org/pharisee.htm], accessed 29 November, 2005).

[7] Scripture

[8]Matthew 22:23-34; Acts 23:6

[9] Matthew 23:4 For they[the Pharisees] bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers (KJV).

[10]And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness (KJV).

[11] Geoffrey W Bromiley., et. al., ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 4: Q-Z. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 278.

[12] James M. Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible, (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1996), 365.

[13] While Acts 23:8 is often cited as proof that the Sadducees did not believe in the existence of angels or spirits at all, some interpret that the text is merely evidence that the Sadducees were only rejecting human claims to such sightings and were not rejecting their existence as a whole. However, the author of this paper would hold to the argument that because the listing reads: "the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit...," and includes the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection (Mark 12:18) that it would be a viable argument to say that the Sadducees did not believe in angels or spirits at all.

[14] Acts 5:17 and 4:6 seem to substantiate this claim.

[15] Numbers 11:16ff

[16] R. Travers Herford, The Pharisees (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1924), 24.

[17] James M. Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible, (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1996), 387.

[18] This is evidenced by the influence exerted over the Jewish people surrounding the trial of Christ. Although Pilate attempted to persuade the people to crucify Barabbas over Jesus, the chief priests and scribes (who comprised the Sanhedrin) persuaded the people to choose to crucify Jesus (Matthew 27:20).

[19] In Matthew 26:59, false witnesses were sought to come before the council and testify against Jesus in order that they might put him to death. Mark 15:1 cites the direct involvement of this council with Jesus' arrest and trial before Pilate.

[20] Acts 5:21

[21] Acts 6:15

[22] Acts 23:6, 15; 24:20; 25:12

[23] Darrel Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2002), 135.

[24] Charles Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 120.

[25] Luke 6:15 (ASV).

[26] Ralph Gower, The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987), 261.