Now that we have witnessed the healing of this “…servant of the high priest,” lets look further at the prominent Jewish leaders that servants like him were subservient to. In reality they were a pretty diverse and divided lot – just like most religious groups are. It is often said that “religion and politics make strange bedfellows.”  If that is true, then the Passion of the Christ is a classic example of that odd coalition. In this drama we find a number of otherwise diverse Jewish leaders unified on one thing – their opposition to Jesus Christ.

There are several key Jewish leaders and religious groups that we need to pause and identify as the Passion of the Christ continues to unfold. It is impossible to understand the people of the cross without clearly identifying the role of these Jewish religious leaders. While their role was pivotal, it cannot be isolated from the immediate wider context of people – which included both Romans, Gentiles and Greeks.

Most importantly, Christ’s passion cannot be separated from the entire human race. No single people group can be exclusively blamed for the death of Christ. The Scripture is very clear in assigning guilt for the death of Christ to the entire human family because “…all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Therefore, since there is universal sin there is also universal culpability.  As we will continue to see throughout this study, all people are responsible for the death of Christ – not just the Jews or Romans. So to isolate them from the wider context of humanity is to be guilty of a myopic Biblical perspective and truncated theological reasoning.

Sadly, it has been a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible – with a corresponding misplaced emphasis on the role of the Jews, that have sometimes led to anti-Semitism. Through the centuries, some overly zealous and under informed people have accused the Jews of deicide, or of “God-killing.”  As a result of this false label of “God Killers” and “Christ Haters,” many Jews have been vilified, persecuted and murdered across the centuries – oftentimes in the name of Christ!  This has only further alienated the Jews from the Passion of the Christ, and widened the chasm of suspicion and hostility between the Jews and Gentiles.

So while it is historically inaccurate to separate the Jews from the events of the passion, it is theologically inaccurate to make them the sole culpable agents of Christ’s crucifixion. If one approaches the Gospel narratives with that kind of anti-Jewish racial bigotry and bias, then the conclusions of deicide is inevitable – along with its corollary of anti-Semitism. But if one reads the Gospels within the wider context of the Bible – along with even an ounce of personal spiritual honesty, then he will know objectively and subjectively that every member of Adam’s race has the blood of Christ on his hands!

Most importantly, we have already seen that the Bible clearly assigns ultimate responsibility for the death of Christ to God Himself. As we saw in an earlier section, this is a clear revelation of both the Old and New Testament. Isaiah the prophet said this about the Messiah: “…it was the Lord’s will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10). That’s why Peter preached to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost: “This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge…” (Acts 2:23). So who was responsible for the death of Christ? God Himself!  This is part of the mystery of the Passion of the Christ.

Having carefully laid that historical and theological foundation, let’s examine briefly the primary Jewish actors in this drama.

As individuals or theological groups, the Jewish leaders are variously referred to in the passion narratives as follows:

• “Chief Priests”: Matthew 26:14, 47, 59; 27:1, 6; Mk. 14:43, 53; 15:31, etc.

• “Elders”: Matthew 26:48, 57; 27:1; Mk. 14:43, 53; Luke 22:66, etc.

• “Teachers of the Law” (NIV) or “Scribes” (KJV & NASV): Matthew 8:19; 13:52; 26:57; Mk. 12:32; 14:43, 53; 15:31; Luke 22:66, etc.

• “Sanhedrin”:  Collectively, the above group of Jewish religious leaders are referred to as the Sanhedrin, or “The Council,” which is what the Greek word sunedion means. Even though their precise formation is lost in antiquity, the Jews generally trace the origin of this governing body to Numbers 11:16-17, where God instructed Moses:

“Bring me seventy of Israel’s elders who are known to you as leaders and officials among the people. Have them come to the Tent of Meeting, that they may stand there with you. I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take the Spirit that is on you and put the Spirit on them. They will help you carry the burden of the people so that you will not have to carry it alone.”

In the Third Gospel, Luke refers to them as “…the Council of the elders of the people” (Luke 22:66). Most probably, they came into being during the Hellenist, or Greek period, when Palestine was almost given complete autonomy. So it was during this period that this council of aristocratic Jewish elders emerged as powerful and authoritative. However, under the Roman rule, their power was restricted – and limited primarily to theological issues rather than legal matters. But as we saw from the Book of Numbers, we do know that the Sanhedrin was specifically composed of seventy-one members—and they were presided over and dominated by the “High Priest.”

Like all religious bodies, the Sanhedrin was divided ideologically between conservatives and liberals. So there were two primary “theological parties” within the Sanhedrin. Let’s look at them briefly.

• Sadducees:  This group of Jewish leaders primarily adhered to the Pentateuch, or 5 books of Moses. Therefore, they largely rejected the “…tradition of the elders” that were so emphasized by the Pharisees (Matt. 15:1). They were the more theological liberals of the Sanhedrin. As a result of their theological liberalism, they were basically anti-supernaturalists, and did not believe in miracles or the resurrection of the dead (which is why Paul would later clash with them!). They were largely from the higher socio-economic priestly class of Jewish aristocracy – and had the power and influence that usually goes along with that position in society. During the Hellenist period, they had increasingly become influenced by Greek philosophy. As a result, they wanted to broaden Judaism to accommodate Greek thought and culture. So they were more pluralistic and tolerant. Therefore, the Sadducees would have felt comfortable in much of American liberal and leftist society today! So in spite of their theological liberalism, their education and wealth made them a powerful part of the Sanhedrin. However, Jesus warned His disciples about the dangers of the “…leaven of the Sadducees” (Matthew 3:7; 16:1-6; 11-34; Mk. 12:18; Luke 20:27-39; Acts 4:1; 5:17; 23:6-8)

• Pharisees: By contrast to the Sadducees, this group comprised the theological conservatives of the Sanhedrin. They were the Jewish Fundamentalists who took the Mosaic Law literally – as well as enforced a strict obedience to the Jewish Traditions of the elders. By the time of Christ they had increasingly become a powerful party within the Sanhedrin – and Jesus often found Himself in conflict with them over their strict interpretation of the Law. Paul was a Pharisee before his conversion to Christ. Nicodemus also was a member of the party of the Pharisees. But just as He had done with the Sadducees, Jesus also warned His disciples of the “…leaven of the Pharisees.”  And because He had more encounters and conflicts with this Jewish Party of legalists, there are some 79 references to them in the New Testament – too many to list (Matthew 5:20; 9:11-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 22:15-41; 23:2-13; Luke 6:7; 11:39-44; John 3:1; 12:19 Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5). Virtually all of the “Seven Woes” spoken by Christ were aimed at the Pharisees – which only deepened their hatred of Jesus! In this bold encounter Jesus variously refers to them as the “Pharisees and teachers of the law” followed by these very scathing descriptions: “…hypocrite…blind guides…blind fools…whitewashed tombs…snakes… brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:1-36). Not very complimentary descriptions in anyone’s book! However, we do know from Acts that some of them later became believers and followers of Christ after His resurrection (Acts 15:5).

Collectively then, the Sanhedrin was the highest authority in Judaism. It was what we might call the “Supreme Court of Israel.”  The pronouncements they made were final when it came to the Mosaic Law. There was no higher authority than them. Once they had rendered a judgment, there were no higher appeals one could turn to. Theirs was the “last word” in matters concerning the Law of Moses. They literally had the power of “life and death” in their hands. And, they exercised this authority against Jesus.

But until about 40 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin clearly had the power of capital punishment. However, by the time of Christ things had changed. The rule of Rome greatly limited their judicial power, but left their theological power in place as a means to appease them. So while they could decree a sentence of death –  they could not carry it out. That could only be done by the Romans as the final judicial authority in the land. That is precisely why the Sanhedrin had to refer Jesus to Pilate for execution (John 18:31-32).

Finally, we know that Jesus did have some personal friends and “secret followers” on this Council – like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38-39). We will see them again later after the events of the crucifixion.

Now that we have made a general overview of the Judaism and the Sanhedrin during Christ’s day, our next Lenten Study will take a closer look at the powerful “High Priest” who ruled this Council of Elders.

Permalink:

http://www.jlwilliams.org/home/full_entry/134