The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The politics and theology of the Sadducees

On Sunday, November 23, I heard a sermon on Acts 4. The theme of the sermon was "In the name of Jesus" although personally I don't think that the contents of the sermon and the theme matched.

In verses 1 to 3 we read that In refering to this event the pastor said that the actual driving reason for the action of arresting the apostles was not the theology of the Sadducees but their political position. So, he claimed that what the apostles taught could have had revolutionary political implications, that it could have disturbed the political stability and therefore the political position of the Sadducees. He thus also said that the politics of the Sadducees determined their theology.

I found this statement rather strange because, so I reasoned, Luke thoroughly investigated all these things. Luke was around at that time and I guess that if it was really a matter of political stability that Luke would have stated it. What bothered me is that the pastor claimed that Scripture does not give us the actual reason. So, I talked to the pastor about this and he explained that he used an authoritative commentary and that's where he got this information. I don't question the fact that the Sadducees might have been politically involved. However, I don't see any evidence in Scripture to support the claim that the actual reason for the arrest was politically motivated. In fact, it seems to me that it was theologically.

Now I think one of the points the pastor wanted to make was to say that one should be careful that one's political views do not influence one's theology. Which certainly is true.

But for the Sadducees, it seems to me that it is more likely that their theology influenced their politics and not the other way round. Is it not their denial of the resurrection, which is a theological matter, that influenced their view of life? For them everything would have ended at death and they had to get out of life what they could, also their political power and everything that goes with it.

And is it not so even today that at the fundamental level it is a theological view that underlies a political view and not the other way round? Are "so-called" political liberation struggles and their connection to liberation theology not real present day examples of this?

Don't know if this is just an academic matter but would nevertheless want to hear what others say.

Johan

If I may sort of add a reply to my own post, I think we can also see in Israel's history that a king's theology determined his politics.

Abortion is also a matter of politics and is driven from an underlying ungodly theology.

Am I correct?

Proverbs 23:7 [ASV] "For as he thinketh within himself, so is he"

It seems that what this pastor has said puts the cart before the horse for unless theology for him is purely academic, a person's theology must inform his personal cosmology and direct his very life's decisions. It is as a man thinks, which is most certainly drawn from his theology, that informs all of his views, his thoughts, and therefore his actions which follow. It can't be otherwise.

Abortion can only come from a denial of God's command to not commit murder. It might play out in a political sphere but it comes from a theological view—the denial of God and His commands.

The Apostles' message most certainly was revolutionary, both theologically and politically.

Theologically because it defied the Sadducees' anti-resurrection dogma and openly portrayed the Man Jesus as divine; and politically because it's major theme, "Jesus is Lord," meant that of necessity, Caesar is not. The Romans could have been content to "tolerate" Christianity along with Judaism and the worship of the Hellenistic gods and such, except for the Christian claim of exclusivity.

"Yeah sure we can add your Jesus to our pantheon, but you must still worship Caesar as Lord."

The Christian answer must be that Jesus is Lord exclusively and there is no other.

The term "Lord" wasn't being used by either the Romans or the Christians in the ordinary sense of having civil or domestic authority, but as divinely supreme, having all authority and all power in heaven and earth.

Of course the Sadducees were politically motivated! Christian theology threatened the uneasy peace between the Jews and their occupying Roman rulers, who allowed the Jews to have a temple and to maintain their priestly function and it's limited political power in the Judean area.

-R

I personally find this pastor's conclusion that the main antagonism displayed by the Sadducees toward Jesus was political to be in error. The Sadducees wanted to have control over their own people, first in the religious sense. Thus, they were in constant conflict with the Pharisees.

The main authorities for the teaching of the Sadducees are the New Testament and Josephus. According to the former, the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body, and did not believe in angels or spirits (Mt 22:23; Ac 23:8). More can be learned from Josephus, but his evidence is to be received with caution, as he was a Pharisee and, moreover, had the idea that the Sadducees were to be paralleled with the Epicureans. The Talmud is late. Before even the Mishna was committed to writing (circa 200 AD) the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the Gemara was completed (circa 700 AD) every valid tradition of their opinions must have vanished. Further, the Talmud is Pharisaic. The Fathers, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius and Jerome, have derived their information from late Pharisaic sources.

This prominent Jewish sect, though not so numerous as their opponents, the Pharisees, by their wealth and the priestly descent of many of them had an influence which fully balanced that of their more popular rivals. They were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the more religious and democratic Pharisees. But later in their history, they became much more a religious party.

Thrown into the background by the overthrow of their candidate for the high-priesthood, they soon regained their influence. They allied themselves with the Herodiana who had supported Hyrcanus, but were subservient to Rome. Though they were not theological at first, they became so, to defend their policy against the attacks of the Pharisees. A historic parallel may be found in the Cavaliers of the reign of Charles I, as over against the Puritans.

The Sadducees at first regarded the struggle between our Lord and the Pharisees as a matter with which they had no concern. It was not until our Lord claimed to be the Messiah, and the excitement of the people consequent on this proved likely to draw the attention of the Roman authorities, that they intervened. Should Tiberius learn that there was widespread among the Jews the belief in the coming of a Jewish king who was to rule the world, and that one had appeared who claimed to be this Messiah, very soon would the quasi-independence enjoyed by the Jews be taken from them, and with this the influence of the Sadducees would depart. An oligarchy is proverbially sensitive to anything that threatens its stability; a priesthood is unmeasured in its vindictiveness; and the Sadducees were a priestly oligarchy. Hence, it is not wonderful that only the death of Jesus would satisfy them.

Interestingly enough, Jesus was more 'favorable' toward the Sadducees vs. the Pharisees.

Lastly, I would be very interested to know the commentary and/author which this pastor used as his source.

Robin, the pastor's argument is basically the same as yours. And I have no problem with the fact that indeed the gospel was in a certain sense revolutionary. But is it not so that quite generally the Jews in any case claimed that there is only one God.

What I have difficulty with is whether an exclusive political motivation really is applicable in this specific case. I can understand that in a general sense they were politically motivated in a lot of things that they did. There are many other instances recorded in Acts where there were turmoil due to the apostles preaching the gospel. In some cases it was driven by economical considerations.

Apart from the conclusion the pastor made that the theology of the Sadducees were driven by their politics, my question is if one has to make a sermon from this part of Acts, is it really correct to make such a firm statement that the actual reason for the arrest of the apostles was something else than what is described there.

Maybe this is a minor thing that I am blowing up.

Johan

I will see if I can find out which commentary he used.

I think your concern is valid and an important one to be sure. The MAIN reason for all of the opposition shown toward the Lord Christ is because of the innate hatred of the "Light" that came into the world (Jh 3:19,20). And it is written, "If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (Jh 15:18,19). Surely, Jesus was not implying that this hatred toward Him and consequently toward all those who would follow Him was politically motivated.

I agree with you. The motivation for their opposition to Christianity was certainly neither entirely nor solely motivated by their desire to remain in their positions of power and influence. I'm just saying that there's no denying that it was a factor, though certainly not the only one.

-R

Robin, yes! If the pastor has put it in this historical context but also that which Pilgrim gave above I would not have questioned what he said!

Amen. When a teacher proposes something new and unfamiliar to those of us who have been around a little while, he had darn well better support his thesis with more than a quote or two from some extrabiblical source.

I think it is not possible to exegete from the scriptures that the Sadducees were motivated entirely by politics, and a teacher who would assert such a thing has exceeded the teachings of scripture and is out of bounds.

-R

And again out of curiosity, what was the pastor's point in all this? Was he consistent with his premise and therefore tell you that unless you are a member/supporter of the current political party where you live, you can expect to be the 'victim' of hatred and persecution?

I cannot emphasize enough that the hatred that the contemporaries of Christ showed toward Him was deep-seated and personal. For if Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the incarnate Son of God, then as the Supreme Judge of all the earth, ALL would have to bow before Him, stand before Him in judgment, be found guilty and finally sentenced to eternal damnation. And, perhaps more immediately threatening to them is the fact that as God, He knew all; every dirty little secret. The divine Light is blinding to those who cannot see and extremely painful to behold. But to those who have been eyes to see, the pain of exposure pales in comparison to the relief of having all that burden, all that guilt, taken away and then being able to bask in the warm of the Sonlight of His love and acceptance.

Well, that was the second and perhaps more important reason why I wanted to talk to him.

The point that he made was that the example of the Sadducees shows us "how dangerous is to use Scripture selectively". Why I wanted to talk to him about this is because, in my opinion, the church council is guilty of using Scripture selectively to justify their position in favour of the ordination of women as elders and pastors! And I said this to him. I also told him that I have on more than one occasion written extensive replies to the commission chairs and other "important" individuals in the congregation (Pilgrim you know about this) but never got a decent reply.

It was (again) a rather disappointing discussion because at first he said that he is not really interested in what I wrote and the other documents that I refer to in my letters. I was silently shocked at this because he is supposed to be a shepherd for the members of the congregation etc etc. He later turned around and admitted that it was wrong that I got no replies to my letters and said that he would read the stuff that I brought with me. But he will only have a look at it in January when synod meets and some of these issues are on the agenda. I really don't expect a lot to come out of this.

About the sermon, I really don't think the theme "In the name of Jesus" was really addressed.

That's my version.....

Perhaps an illustration of the sort of dualism in using Scripture. A couple of weeks ago one of the professors at our seminary gave a sermon from Phillipians 2:19-30. Almost right at the beginning of the sermons he said that one might wonder why God had passages like this included in Scripture. He then was very explicit about the specific reason why God had it included - I can't remember his exact words, but he was very confident that the reason he gave was exactly that why God had it included. But I know that this professor also supports the views of the Biblical/Evangelical feminists in many aspects. Why can't he then not also explicitly state the reason why God intended to have certain other passages like in 1 Tim 2 and 3 etc also included in Scripture? When it comes to these passages then we are completely clueless about why God intended to have it included in Scripture and tries our level best with all sorts of schemes to avoid the direct and natural reading of these passages - well that's their position.

One regularly finds these kind of inconsistencies in sermons.

I was remiss in commenting on this pastor's interpretation and subsequent application and I thought it should be addressed. I mean, after all, his responsibility is to "preach the Word" and not deal in fanciful musings. It should be perspicuous from the immediate context, that what precipitated the arrest of Peter, John and the beggar whom they had just healed, was not simply that they were teaching the people, but what they were teaching; the resurrection of the dead (specifically in regard to Jesus whom the Jewish leaders through the instrumentality of the Romans, crucified and buried. Now, being that I am no "authority" but a simple beggar myself who has been redeemed by the infinite mercy and grace of God through the shed blood and resurrection of Christ, I thought it wise to consult a reliable source on the matter. So, I turned to one of the several commentaries I have on hand; R.C.H. Lenski (NT Greek Scholar) to see what how he interpreted the passage. This is a portion of what he wrote:

Likewise, Lenski is clearly convinced that the (main) impetus behind the disciples' arrest was theological. The consequences of teaching a doctrine that was most dear to the Sadducees would certainly have negative effects as to their standing in the Jewish community but doubtless it would go unnoticed by the Roman authorities, aka: political ramifications.

The emphasis, IMHO, is upon the dramatic transformation and boldness of the disciples after witnessing the risen Christ, so much so that they entered the actual Temple, which was constantly under the watchful eye of the "commander of the Temple", who was in charge of a group of other priests commissioned as the Temple police, teaching the resurrection of the crucified Christ, who claimed to be the long-awaited Messiah and God Himself in the flesh.

I think Pilgrim's post have sort of brings this discussion to a close. While I am grateful to see that my original claim that the arrest of the apostles was theologically and not politically driven, it is actually quite sad that the congregation did not get the true exposition of that part of Acts 4.

Any case, thanks for the discussion.