Untitled Sermon (1)

Luke 20:27 Politics can be fraught at the best of times, but in Judea their complexity was on another level again. Politics and religion could not be divorced from each other and it would be difficult to decide whether the two main groups were political parties or religious sects. The ruling Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one nobles and priests, under the leadership of the High Priest. Though subservient the Roman Governor, they controlled the internal affairs of Judea. It had its own police force with the power to make arrests, and acted as a court of criminal justice, administering both civil and religious matters.

The dominant political force in the Sanhedrin was the aristocratic Sadducees representing mainly the priests and nobles of the ruling aristocracy from the Hasmonean dynasty. They made up the greater portion of its numbers as well as dominating the most powerful positions. This was a power base that they protected, along with their economic interests, by working closely with the Roman occupiers (Jn 11:48). Holding a high view of the Torah (the five books of Moses) they rejected the oral traditions of the Pharisees. They also rejected the Psalms and the Prophets as authoritive scripture. Consequently they also rejected any notion of a messianic kingdom, or of the after life, since they are not mentioned in the Torah. Interestingly Luke tels us that they also didn't believe in angels, or spirits (Acts 23:8). They were preoccupied with the here and now, concentrating on the accumulation of power, status and wealth. Central to this self suffiency is the freedom of the human will. There was no place for God's providence, or for predestination. Because of their high social status they were the political conservatives. This meant that they were naturally suspicous of anything new and this new teaching of Jesus threatened to undermine their stability.

The scholarly Pharisees, on the other hand, had extensive popular support and many of their teachings closly aligned with Jesus. Their origins probably extend back to the teaching schools established by Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 8:7-9) with the aim of interpreting the law and teaching the people. By the time of the Jewish revolt against Selucid rule (164 BC), they had morphed into a political party called the Hasideans who gave their support to Mattathias, the leader of the revolt (1 Mac 2:42). We first see them referred to as Pharisees during the rule of Jonathan as high Priest (152-142BC) where Josephus mentions three sects, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essens (Ant. xiii.5.8). Later, during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104BC) we see the Pharisees and the Sadducees acting as opposing political parties, with the Pharisees losing power over their opposition to the king also being high priest (Ant. xiii.10.5-6). At the death of Moses the separation of civil and religious authority had beed clearly delineated (Num 27:20-21), a separation that the Hasmonean rulers clearly violated.

(Note that though the freedom fighters Mattathias, and his Sons Judas Maccabeas, Jonathan and Simon are refered to as the Maccabees, they were of Hasmonean decent and therefore their dynasty is known as Hasmonean. Jonathan was the first to claim the title of High Priest, succeded by his brother Simon who also took on the title of ethnarch).

While the pharisees may have initially supported the Maccabean revolt but later withdrw their support, the Sadducees seem to have done the opposite. Jonathan, though a descendant of Aaron, was not a descendant of Zadok. While evidence of the origins of either party are scant, the Sadducees are thought to have formed around a group of priests who believed that only a descendant of Zadok had the right to be high priest (Eze 40:46, 43:19, 44:15, 48:11). Thus Jonathan ( the first Hasmonean ruler) was considered a usurper, even though the Sadducees were quick to gain royal patronage when it came their way.

Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed that God controlled the events of human history and that the righteous will be rewarded in the afterlife. They also rejected excessive wealth accumulation and a luxurious lifestyle. Where they fell out with Jesus was over his constant condemnation of their strict interpretation of the Old Testament law that saw the most vulnerable in society marginalised. Within the Pharisees there was a strong scribal tradition. The scribes were the learned scholars who wrote treatises on the interpretation of the law. They codefied it and promoted its study. Not all Pharisees were scribes and not all scribes were Pharisees, but many were, and the two became closely associated. The way the scribes codified the law greatly influenced the teaching and practice of the Pharisees. The closeness of the pharisees and the scribes can be seen in comparing Matthew 22:15 with Luke 20:19. Matthew desribes those who tried to entrap Jesus over taxes as Pharisees, but in Luke they were Scribes; presumably scribes belonging to the Pharisee party.

The Pharisees growing popular support meant that they gained considerable influence, both in the Sanhedrin and in the wider community. Consequently the Sadducees found it difficult to act without Pharisee support. Despite the deep amonosity and rivalry between the two parties, stretching back to the Maccabean revolt, in this passage we see the two parties working in tandem to try and trap Jesus. In Luke 20:19 "The scribes and chief priests" could be read as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The same for verse 1. It was their opposition to Jesus that united them.

When the Pharisees failed to to entrap Jesus over the taxes, the Sadducees stepped in with what they thought was a smart conundrum over the resurrection. One that they thought would show up Jesus in front of the crowd.