A Roman silver coin that was the pay for a day’s labor as well as the annual temple tax. It was what Jesus’ opponents brought to him when he told them, “Give back Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (see Matt. 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:20–26).

Since the term “Herodians” appears only three times in the NT (Matt. 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13), it is unclear whether it refers to a political party or more generally to supporters of the Herodian dynasty. Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ruled as tetrarch of Galilee during the period of Jesus’ ministry, and this is likely where the Herodians were based. In all three NT appearances they are conspiring with the Pharisees against Jesus. This is unusual in one sense because the Herodians were favorably disposed toward the Roman authorities (who kept Herod in power), while the Pharisees generally opposed Roman rule. Nonetheless, both groups had reason to fear Jesus and his influence among the people, the Pharisees for religious reasons and the Herodians for political ones. Herod and his supporters would have been leery of any popular messianic movement that might provoke a peasant revolt among Herod’s disgruntled subjects. See also Jewish Parties.

The practice of claiming standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform. Hypocrisy is attributed to those whose actions and words differ from the intention of their heart (Matt. 22:18; 23:28). It is a form of lying (1 Tim. 4:2; 1 Pet. 2:1) and can become a form of self-delusion (Matt. 7:5; 23:16–26; Luke 12:56; 13:15).

The OT expresses the sense with phrases like “double heart” and “flattering lips” (Ps. 12:2 KJV). Jeremiah describes those who have God “always on their lips but far from their hearts” (Jer. 12:2).

The NT word hypokrinomai has its origin in the theater, referring to a play actor (Luke 20:20). All parts, including female characters, were played by a few men, who signaled character transitions by switching masks. Jesus calls his opponents “hypocrites” (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Mark 7:6; Luke 12:56; 13:15; cf. Ps. 26:4). Archaeologists have found a theater in Sepphoris, a large and partly Hellenized city within five miles of Jesus’ hometown, Nazareth, but the theater may have been built after his ministry. Even if Jesus did not personally attend the local theater, the imagery would have long been a part of his social world.

Jesus criticizes the scribes and Pharisees because “they do not practice what they preach” (Matt. 23:3; cf. Mark 7:6). What they practice is for display (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). Jesus describes the attempt of his opponents to catch him with crafty questions as hypocrisy (Matt. 22:18; Mark 12:15). Jesus is not necessarily calling all Pharisees hypocrites, and certainly not all Jews, but only those who are impeding his ministry. Paul, who was raised a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5), viewed himself not as a hypocrite but as ignorant (1 Tim. 1:13). Jesus criticizes Nicodemus not for hypocrisy but for ignorance about the deeper meaning of Scripture (John 3:1–15). The rabbis, who are descendants of the Pharisees, relate a tradition of concern about hypocrisy within the ranks of the group (e.g., b. Sotah 22b).

Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy because he was willing to eat with non-Jewish Christians in Antioch but then pulled away when a more culturally conservative group arrived from James in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:13). Peter knew the truth but, from Paul’s view, did not act consistently. In this case, the inconsistency would have created a precedent that Paul could not tolerate. The opposite of hypocrisy is love from a transparently pure heart and a willingness to admit fault (Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6; 1 Pet. 1:22).

A quality of completeness or uprightness; often it is expressed in terms of someone being “blameless.” However it does not, as the English word implies, suggest sinlessness. In biblical thought, integrity is grounded not in a list of character traits but rather in one’s relationship to God. Single-minded devotion to God is the environment in which integrity flourishes (1 Kings 9:4–5).

Scripture describes certain individuals as displaying integrity. Noah is “a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9). The narrator describes Job as “blameless and upright,” someone who “feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1, 8). Jesus is identified as a “man of integrity” (NIV) or “truthful” (NASB) by some Pharisaic questioners (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14).

Paul repeatedly defends his own integrity to his churches when he is under attack by his opponents (2 Cor. 1:12; 1 Thess. 2:1–12) and encourages Titus to teach with integrity (Titus 2:7). He instructs both Timothy and Titus that church leaders must be “above reproach,” “sincere,” and “blameless”—that is, people of integrity (1 Tim. 3:2–10; Titus 1:6–8).

A “head” tax levied by a government, often following a census (see 2 Sam. 24:1–17; 1 Chron. 21:1–17). Taxes were levied against conquered peoples (2 Kings 15:19–20; 23:35). The Romans demanded tribute from every head (tributum capitis) annually (see Mark 12:13–17 pars.). The procurator (e.g., Pontius Pilate) or regional head (e.g., Herod Antipas) was responsible for collecting these taxes. Around the time of Jesus’ birth, many Jews rebelled against the census and tax (Acts 5:37). According to Luke 2:1, Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehem near the time of Jesus’ birth because of a census for tax purposes decreed by Caesar Augustus.

Taxes in Scripture encompass both religious obligation to God to meet the funding requirements of the temple and payments to secular authorities, foreign and domestic. Several words and phrases express the concept in the Bible. In the OT these include the following: (1) Ransom was the temple tax commanded by God, based on a census of Israel (Exod. 30:11–16). It resulted in atonement for the taxpayer and avoidance of a plague on Israel. (2) Tribute was a divinely commanded offering in support of the cultic priesthood. The example in Num. 31:28–30 specifically addresses spoils of war. (3) Levy was a monetary assessment of silver and gold imposed by a superior authority (e.g., Pharaoh Necho) to a subjugated one (e.g., Israel) (see 2 Kings 23:33–35). (4) Tax was a compulsory payment to an authority. The example in 2 Chron. 24:6, 9 refers to the aforementioned ransom. A second usage of the underlying Hebrew, appearing in Amos 5:11, refers to taxes on the poor by corrupt leaders in the northern kingdom.

Additionally, four different words in Aramaic, the original language of Ezra, indicate governmental revenues (Ezra 4:13, 20; 6:8; 7:24). These words are variously translated as “taxes,” “tribute,” “duty,” “revenue.” The shades of difference in meaning among them are unclear.

The NT discusses taxes in several passages. The most comprehensive is Matt. 17:24–27, Jesus’ discussion of the temple tax with Peter, ending with the account of the four-drachma coin in the mouth of the caught fish. Here, three of the four NT Greek words for taxes are employed. (1) Didrachmon in v. 24 is the “temple tax” (NIV, NRSV), the OT “ransom to the Lord” defined above. By the first century AD, the amount was fixed at two drachmas, equivalent to wages for two long days of common labor. (2) Telos comes first in the word pair translated “duty and taxes” in v. 25 and is the generic word in the NT for taxes. It also occurs in Rom. 13:7, where it is translated “revenue.” (3) Kēnsos occurs second in the same word pair in v. 25 and refers to the direct poll tax on male adults. It also appears in Mark 12:14; Matt. 22:17–19, both addressing the question of paying taxes to Caesar. (4) The remaining Greek word, phoros, is found in Luke 20:22; 23:2; Rom. 13:6–7. This term refers specifically to a tribute tax paid by a subjugated nation to a superior authority—for example, the tax owed by Israelites to Caesar.

During the time of Jesus and in the couple of centuries prior, Judaism was not a monolithic entity but was comprised of different groups with varying religious concerns and political interests. This multifaceted nature of Judaism has caused scholars to question whether it would be better to speak of Judaisms rather than Judaism. Was Judaism cut from a whole cloth, or was it a box of fabric scraps? Perhaps it is best to speak of Judaism as a single entity, but one comprised of various factions with diverse beliefs and interests. This conclusion is justified because the diverse sentiments and interests were responses to the same religious and political issues, such as Torah, the temple, and foreign occupiers.

Five of the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The first three seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of the Hasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, and the other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by the Romans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.

Pharisees

According to Josephus. The best source of information on the Pharisees, apart from the Gospels themselves, is the Jewish historian Josephus, who discusses the beliefs of various Jewish factions. In consideration of his Roman audience, he depicts these groups as Jewish philosophical schools. In his Antiquities, Josephus indicates a rough outline of the beliefs of the Pharisees and their political position in relation to the Sadducees and the general populace.

Josephus gives the following points in summation of the Pharisees’ beliefs. (1) The Pharisees believed some things are the result of fate, whereas other things are the result of human choice. (2) The Pharisees believed that the soul survives death in a place of either reward or punishment, and in the resurrection of the body. (3) Besides believing in the authority of Scripture, the Pharisees also had an authoritative body of oral tradition.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees had a difficult relationship, due not only to different religious beliefs but also to conflicting political aspirations. Josephus suggests that Jewish leaders gave patronage to one group or the other, or suppressed one group or the other, sometimes violently. In regard to the general populace, the Pharisees had a much better relationship with them than did the Sadducees, to the point that when Sadducees were magistrates, they had to rule according to the beliefs of the Pharisees or else the people would not listen to them.

In the New Testament. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups that opposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposed Jesus on issues related to their received tradition, which they considered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues were ceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. All three Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesus concerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow the tradition of the elders by eating with “unclean,” that is, “unwashed,” hands (Matt. 15:1–2; Mark 7:1–5; Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees confronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11) and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).

In response to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of the elders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of human need that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 12:7).

Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercy toward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This is especially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on the fine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7; 23:23).

In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted as adversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authorities in plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). One passage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). One Pharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesus before his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’ body for burial after his death (19:39).

The Pharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time to time, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke 20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetic toward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in regard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in a confrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, some early Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

Relationship with rabbinic Judaism. An issue concerning the Pharisees is their relationship with later rabbinic Judaism. There are basically two viewpoints on this matter, and both involve the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. One position maintains that when the dust settled from the destruction of the temple, only the Pharisees remained standing, and rabbinic Judaism is their heir. Another view holds that after AD 70 sectarian Judaism disappeared, and rabbinic Judaism emerged from a coalescence of various Jewish groups. Although one cannot be certain, it seems that the former view may be closer to the truth, since in the Mishnah, Sadducean legal opinion is contrasted with Pharisaic, and the Pharisaic is invariably considered correct.

Sadducees

The Sadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood. “Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” a descendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Some members of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok” as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, if not direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of the Qumran community.

Along with the Pharisees, the Sadducees were a religious-political group that sought the support of the ruling powers. It is in the context of the patron-retainer relationship that we first hear of the Sadducees. Josephus relates how the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus switched from being the patron of the Pharisees to that of the Sadducees. When the Pharisee Eliezer suggested that Hyrcanus step down from the high priesthood due to his uncertain lineage, Hyrcanus became very angry and wanted Eliezer to be executed. The rest of the Pharisees suggested that he merely be bound and whipped, since they had a tradition of passing light sentences. A Sadducee suggested that they passed such a light sentence because they agreed with Eliezer that Hyrcanus was unsuitable to be high priest. Hyrcanus then cast his support behind the Sadducees and abolished the laws that the Pharisees had given to the populace.

Josephus gives the following general description of the Sadducees’ beliefs and relationship with the general populace. (1) The Sadducees rejected fate; things are the result of human action alone. Along with this, God stands aloof from humans concerning good and evil actions. Good and evil are the result of human action. (2) The Sadducees believed that the soul dies along with the body. (3) They accepted only the written law and had no oral tradition. Some take this last point to mean that they accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture, but this goes beyond what Josephus says about them.

Josephus goes on to write that Sadducees were as contentious in their disputes with fellow Sadducees as with people outside the group, and they did not hold their elders in esteem. They had influence over the elite, but no say with the populace at large.

The Sadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John, although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesus with the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. All three Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadducees posed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answered that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, and that God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).

The book of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected to the priesthood (Acts 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with the Pharisees over the resurrection (Acts 23:6–8).

Essenes

The Essenes are the third “philosophical school” mentioned by Josephus. Most scholars consider the Qumran sectarians who produced the DSS to be Essenes. This has created a number of circular arguments, since the DSS are then used to confirm the nature of Essene beliefs. That being said, there is good evidence that the Qumran sectarians were at least in part Essene. The Essenes are not mentioned in the NT or in rabbinic literature, but they do appear in the writings of Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder.

Josephus delineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows. (1) They ascribed every happening to God. (2) They believed in the immortality of the soul.

Josephus writes at great length concerning the Essenes’ way of life. They lived an ascetic lifestyle, avoided pleasure, and devoted themselves to prayer. They shared all things in common and lived in harmony with one another. Some Essenes avoided marriage, whereas others regarded marriage and procreation as too central to human life to avoid. Certain Essenes could predict the future and interpret dreams. Concerning sacrifices, Josephus mentions that although they sent offerings to the temple, they had their own, superior sacrifices.

Philo writes that the Essenes were much admired due to their holy lives, living peaceably with one another and holding to the truth. Contrary to Josephus, Philo says that the Essenes did not sacrifice, but through study they kept their minds pure and holy.

The Essenes, as Josephus and Philo describe them, seem similar to the Qumran sectarians. The Qumran sectarians believed that God determines the fate of people (1QS 3:13–4:26). Although the sectarians believed in the immortality of the soul as well as divine reward and punishment, this does not seem to be emphasized in their writings.

Zealots

Scholars tend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to three different groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii, and Zealots. The three groups have different political ideologies and emerged at different times in the first century. They can all be described as revolutionaries.

The brigands were motivated not by religious or political ideology but by survival. Displaced from the traditional economic structure of Palestine—the agricultural village—by the Romans, the brigands stole from Jew and Roman alike. They hated the Romans because the Romans had driven them into poverty through taxation and transformation of the economy from subsistence-based agriculture to cash crops that could be sold more readily. (Money could be shipped to Rome more easily than crops.)

The other two groups, the Sicarii and the Zealots, fought the Romans and Jewish collaborators for political and religious reasons. They emerged at different times during the first century, and they should not be lumped together, for their methodologies and goals were somewhat different.

Josephus writes about what he calls the “fourth philosophy,” which he considers an alien element introduced into the religion and politics of Israel, begun in AD 6 by Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee. Their slogan was “No king but God,” and they engaged in a short-lived rebellion. It seems unclear whether the fourth philosophy should be a category that includes the brigands, the Sicarii, and the Zealots, or whether it is a group unto itself. Whatever the case, Josephus makes clear that this fourth philosophy is an anomaly in the history of Israel.

The Sicarii were a group of assassins who emerged in the AD 40s–50s. They specialized in mixing into Jerusalem crowds and murdering Jews who were friendly with the Romans, mainly the wealthy. The high priest Jonathan was one of their victims. At the start of the first Roman war, they commanded Jewish troops but were driven out by fellow Jews. They spent the rest of the war at Masada, conducting inconsequential exploits. They killed themselves in AD 73–74 rather than be captured by the Romans. Josephus writes that the leader of the Sicarii at the beginning of the first Roman war was Menahem, the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee. It has been speculated that Judas Iscariot’s surname may be derived from Sicarii, but the etymology is uncertain.

The Zealots emerged at the start of the first Roman war (AD 66–70). Josephus mentions them mainly in connection with the Roman war and seldom in other sections of his writings. They consisted mainly of people displaced by Roman activity in Galilee. They targeted the aristocracy that collaborated with Rome, the Romans themselves, and other revolutionary groups. One of Jesus’ disciples was called “Simon the Zealot” (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), but this is likely a reference to his zealous faith.

The first Roman war erupted when the Roman procurator Florus looted the temple. When nothing was done concerning this, the lower priests, the captain of the temple guard, Eleazar, and other revolutionary leaders decided to terminate the temple sacrifice made on the emperor’s behalf. This essentially started the Roman war and gave rise to the Zealots.

Herodians

The Herodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reported to have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after he healed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are also described, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesus concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13).

The Herodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and the Romans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to be some overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”), whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religious beliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too little information about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions. One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Roman aristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees in opposing Jesus.

Both Testaments proclaim, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:26). Only the Lord and Creator of the universe can rightfully claim ownership over anything, be it physical, spiritual, or moral (Job 41:11). Thus, “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). He even owns human beings themselves. In a biblical worldview, God alone exercises ownership. People, however, exercise stewardship over what he has given.

Scripture guides and regulates human relationships with respect to owning property. While people are ultimately only stewards, they must never wrongly take or desire what God has entrusted to others. Therefore God commands, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15) and “You shall not covet” (20:17). The book of Proverbs explains how to wisely dispose of one’s goods (Prov. 3:9, 10; 11:25; 22:9), as does Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30). Numerous passages teach that human “ownership” should be earned through work, if possible (Jer. 29:5–7; 2 Thess. 3:10). People should acknowledge their possessions as gifts from God by giving to the poor (Eph. 4:28) and to God’s appointed leaders, both secular and Christian: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17 [cf. Rom. 13:6; 1 Tim. 5:18]).

In fact, the whole Bible can be read as the drama of the divine owner relating to his human stewards. At creation, God charges Adam and Eve “to work . . . and take care of” the garden (Gen. 2:15), thereby entrusting all creation to human care. In disobedience they abuse their stewardship, as will their offspring. In the fall, humankind forfeits God’s benefits in paradise (Gen. 3); he disowns his unfaithful stewards. The rest of Scripture relates how God redeems a people for himself, adopting the disinherited back into his household. He begins by promising Abraham that his offspring, Israel, will possess a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:8), which will be a kind of new paradise (Exod. 3:8). The Israelites conquer the territory, but over time they prove to be unfaithful stewards. After breaking God’s covenant, they lose the land in exile.

Jesus’ parable of the landowner in Matt. 21:33–44 is basically a capsule version of this grand biblical story. Both come to a climax when God sends his Son, Jesus Christ. He comes to “buy back” his people from their sins as the one faithful servant (Mark 10:45), even unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Jesus pays for his elect’s adoption with his blood, so now believers partake in God’s ownership over all things. “All things are yours, whether . . . the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (1 Cor. 3:21–23).

The Roman emperor during the time of Jesus’ ministry, he reigned in the years AD 14–37. Tiberius was adopted by his predecessor, Augustus, in an act that paved the way for Tiberius to ascend to the headship of the empire. All references to “Caesar” in the Gospels are to Tiberius (except Luke 2:1). The first mention of Tiberius states that the ministry of John the Baptist was taking place “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1). It is noteworthy that each of the remaining Gospel references to Tiberius concerns the issue of paying taxes. All three Synoptic Gospels give an account of a debate between Jesus and certain religious leaders about paying taxes to Caesar, with Jesus indicating that they indeed should be paid (Matt. 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:20–26). In contrast, when Jesus is later on trial before Pilate, the assembled crowd alleges that Jesus opposed the payment of taxes to Tiberius Caesar (Luke 23:2).