THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEWISH ZEALOTRY AND JEWISH APOCALYPTICISM IN FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON MODERN ZIONISM
by
John Harrigan
ICS 6073 – Islam in the 21st Century
Dr. Nabeel Jabbour
February 7, 2015
When reading the Gospels, we as modern Western believers are often struck with the foreign nature of Jesus’ culture and language. He speaks of things like the “kingdom of God,” “resurrection,” and “day of judgment” as though they are commonly understood terms and phrases. Unfortunately, it is often difficult and confusing to bridge the theological and cultural divide between us and first century Judaism. What were the common streams of thought within Judaism during Jesus’ day, and how did Jesus interact with them? Moreover, how do we receive and apply his message to modern day issues? This paper seeks to explore some of these issues, particularly the differences between zealotry and apocalypticism within first century Judaism, and how they compare and apply to modern Judaism and its Zionist agenda.
The twentieth century saw an explosion of research concerning the Jewish background of Jesus and New Testament. Most of this research developed out of higher criticism of the Bible within European scholarship. Thus, the findings of this research were generally liberal, concluding that Jesus was simply a diluted and mistaken first century apocalyptic Jew. After WWII, however, two events propelled Jewish studies of the New Testament forward: the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and post-Holocaust Jewish-Christian scholarly dialogue.
When studying first century Judaism, we are confronted with a wide range of literature. Besides the New Testament, the primary sources for understanding the Jews of Jesus’ day include the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the writings of Philo and Josephus, and the rabbinical literature. In particular, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha reveal the intertestamental development of apocalyptic thought concerning the interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Apocalypticism developed not as a new system of thought, but rather as a new hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures. It sought above all to categorize and summarize redemptive history and its major themes. Thus, the whole of the divine council—i.e., the historical books (Torah), the prophetical writings (Nevi’im), and the wisdom literature (Ketuvim)—could be harmonized and seen from the “big picture,” so to speak.
Apocalypticism is chiefly characterized by dependence upon God alone, and its predominant theme is the restoration of all things. As it was in the beginning, so it will be at the end, for God himself will make a new heavens and new earth. What was lost by Adam in Eden will be restored by the Messiah in the New Jerusalem. Death and suffering will be swallowed up by life and everlasting joy. The wicked kingdoms of the earth will be replaced by God’s righteous kingdom. And the fulcrum of all these events will be what is called “the Day of the Lord” (cf. day of judgment, day of wrath, day of Christ, last day, etc.). Thus, redemptive history is divided into two fundamental ages: “this age” before the Day of the Lord and “the age to come” after the Day of the Lord. This age is temporal, while the age to come is eternal. Though this life ends in death, God himself will restore all things and grant eternal life when this age comes to a close.
Though apocalyptic thought was widespread in Judaism by the first century ad, not everyone believed or accepted it. Josephus records that there were four main “philosophies,” or streams of thought at the time. The first three (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) developed soon after the Maccabean Revolt (168–164 bc). The Essenes and Pharisees were apocalyptic, while the Sadducees generally rejected such a framework. Though the Pharisees engaged society in their observance of the Law, the Essenes withdrew to the wilderness (believing society to be irreparably corrupt), yet both held similar views of the future.
After the Romans conquered Israel/Palestine, there arose a “fourth philosophic sect,” which sought to coerce the hand of God through human zeal. As Josephus described, “They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such counsels as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same.” Though much dispute surrounds the nature and effects of this philosophy, it was more or less an insurgent ideology that produced many different insurgent groups, including the “bandits” (Gk. lēstēs, cf. Jn. 18:40), the “Sicarri,” the “Idumeans,” and the “Zealots”. I will simply refer to this philosophy as “zealotry”.
According to Horsley and Hanson, this zealot philosophy contained four essential and interrelated concepts. First, paying taxes to Rome was considered the same as slavery. Second, they said, “God is to be their only Ruler and Lord”. All other foreign rule was idolatrous. Third, if the faithful would stand against such idolatry, God would work synergistically through them. And fourth, this synergism would result in the idyllic restoration of the Davidic kingdom.
Though not directly the result of the Maccabean Revolt, Jewish zealotry looked to the Maccabees for inspiration and strategy (the Maccabean Revolt was generally a defensive response to the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, while Jewish zealotry was more of an offensive approach in its interpretation and practice of the Law and Prophets). As the Maccabees burned with zeal against foreign idolatry and withdrew to the wilderness to gather forces until an opportune time to attack (cf. 1 Macc. 2:27-48), so did the zealots.
The zealots and the Pharisees were intertwined, because zealotry supposedly began in 6 ad with Judas of Galilee and Zadok the Pharisee. Though quasi-apocalyptic, the zealots rejected the notion that God alone would deliver Israel from its long exile. Moreover, many of them were primarily motivated by political and financial gain (i.e., freedom from Roman rule and taxation). In this way, zealotry can be viewed, both historically and theologically, as a diluted and polluted form of apocalyptic Pharisaism.
To add to the complexity of the relationship between the Pharisees and zealotry, the Pharisees were a divided house. Unlike the Sadducees and Essenes, who were basically homogenous in their thought and practice, the Pharisees were broken into two schools of thought based upon two revered scholars: Hillel and Shammai (both lived c. 60 bc – ad 20). Three hundred and sixteen controversies between the two schools are recorded in the Talmud, and generally Shammai was much more rigid and harsh in his observance of the Law than was Hillel, who sought a path of mercy and compassion (many of the sayings of Jesus are thought to be derived from Hillel). Moreover, the Shammaites were sympathetic to the zealots, as Rabbi Mendelsohn outlines:
About this time the malcontents held the ascendency. Under the guidance of Judas the Gaulonite (or Galilean) and of Zadok, a Shammaite (Tosef., ‘Eduy. ii. 2; Yeb. 15b), a political league was called into existence, whose object was to oppose by all means the practise of the Roman laws. Adopting as their organic principle the exhortation of the father of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 2:50), “Be ye zealous for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers,” these patriots called themselves “Ḳanna’im,” Zealots (Josephus, “B.J.” iv. 3. § 9, and vii. 8, § 1: Raphall, “Post-Biblical History,” ii. 364); and the Shammaites, whose principles were akin to those of the Zealots, found support among them. Their religious austerity, combined with their hatred of the heathen Romans, naturally aroused the sympathies of the fanatic league, and as the Hillelites became powerless to stem the public indignation, the Shammaites gained the upper hand in all disputes affecting their country’s oppressors.
Concerning these major streams within first century Judaism, how then do Jesus and the apostles relate? It seems quite clear that Jesus opposed the hypocrisy and non-apocalyptic views of the Sadducees (cf. Mt. 16:6; 22:29). He also opposed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, but otherwise embraced their apocalyptic views (cf. Mt. 5:20; 24:4ff). Though he never addresses the Essenes, it is assumed that Jesus agreed with their hope, yet rejected their practice of disengagement with society. Concerning the zealot philosophy, however, Jesus was generally opposed.
It is often recognized that Jesus’ interaction with Peter in Matthew 16:13–28 (cf. Mk. 8:27–38; Lk. 9:18–27) revolved around Peter’s perverted hope in a zealot Messiah. Jesus asked the disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Mt. 16:13). Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 14). Jesus’ messianic identity was in question, and Jesus affirmed Peter’s declaration as true (vv. 17–20). However, when Jesus went on to explain that the Christ must suffer before entering his glory (v. 21), Peter forcefully declared, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” (v. 22) Jesus countered that Peter’s zealot expectation was Satanic (!) (v. 23) and went on to declare that suffering and martyrdom awaited all those who would seek eternal life (vv. 24–26). The Messiah will indeed come “with his angels in the glory of his Father” (v. 27), but how will this event come about? Will it come slowly and progressively according to the strength of men, or will it come suddenly and apocalyptically from God?
This question is explicitly answered by Jesus in Luke 17:20–37. Throughout the history of the church, much debate has surrounded this passage. However, it makes most sense approached as a simple apologetic against the zealot expectation of the coming of the messianic kingdom. When asked by the Pharisees, “when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed.’” (v. 20, nasb) Jesus goes on to explain these “signs” as observing, “‘Look, here it is’ or ‘There!’” (v. 21). This saying is paralleled and slightly expanded in the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus declared that “false christs” (Mt. 24:24) would arise, and people would declare, “Look, he is in the wilderness . . . Look, he is in the inner rooms” (v. 26). The zealots had a history (derived from the Maccabees) of strategizing in secret (cf. “inner rooms”) and withdrawing to the wilderness to gain forces. Thus, the “signs to be observed” in Luke 17:20 are simply signs of zealot insurgency.
Jesus goes on to proclaim that the messianic kingdom does not come in this manner. Rather, “the kingdom of God comes into your midst” (Lk. 17:21). Instead of coming out of the midst of Israel, slowly by the strength of the flesh, the messianic kingdom comes into Israel’s midst, suddenly by the power of God. Thus, Jesus goes on to expound to his disciples, “And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day” (vv. 23–24; cf. Mt. 24:26–27). Similarly, the coming of the eschatological kingdom will be akin to historical apocalyptic events, i.e., “as it was in the days of Noah” (Lk. 17:26) and “as it was in the days of Lot” (v. 28). Simply put, the Pharisaical vision for the Day of the Lord had become polluted. They had bought into the zealot narrative. They were not apocalyptic enough.
In this way, we would also do well to interpret the entire Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24; cf. Mk. 13; Lk. 21), as a polemic against zealotry. Jesus’ recounting of “the end of the age” (Mt. 24:3) was not meant to simply reinforce the common eschatological narrative of Second Temple Judaism. Rather, Jesus is correcting and warning his disciples against the insurgent hope that had contaminated not only Pharisaical sect (cf. House of Shammai), but also the masses who followed their teachings. Thus, Jesus begins by warning of false messiahs who will “lead many astray” (v. 5), propagating “lawlessness” (v. 12), and instigating “the abomination of desolation” (v. 15). All of the eschatological discourse (vv. 6–22) builds to verse 23, “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.” For the coming of the Messiah is as lightning from the east to the west (v. 27), according to the apocalyptic shaking of the heavens (v. 29, cf. Is. 13:10; 24:23; Joel 2:10). “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (v. 37). Thus, the command to “stay awake” (v. 42) is aimed more at the drunken spirit of zealotry than the drunken flesh of paganism.
In this way, we see a clear line drawn by Jesus between the zealot hope and the apocalyptic hope. The two simply cannot mix. Though it is often said that the theology and hope of Jesus (and the apostles, cf. Acts 24:15) generally aligned with first century Pharisaism, such statements must be qualified and specified. Pharisaism was a divided house, and for most of the first century ad, the zealot-leaning House of Shammai dominated the Pharisaical tradition (ironically exemplified in their choice of the insurgent, Barabbas, over their true king). It was only after zealotry was devastatingly proven wrong during the Jewish-Roman wars (ad 66–136) that the rabbis concluded that Hillel was right. Thus, Hillel’s approach became the standard of subsequent rabbinical tradition.
In this light, it seems best to present the views of Jesus and the apostles in a more nuanced way, being something akin to “compassionate-apocalyptic” Pharisaism (roughly within the Hillelite tradition). The resurrection of Jesus confirmed that the apocalyptic approach to the Scriptures was indeed true. The Sadducees and Zealots were simply wrong (as well as the later Gnostics). He would return in the clouds, in the same manner that he was taken up (Acts 1:11; cf. 1 Thess. 4:16; Rev. 1:7). Moreover, the apostles added to this apocalyptic tradition a theology of the cross in which the death of the Messiah was understood in sacrificial terms according to the mercy and compassion of God (generally in contrast to the approaches of both the Essenes and Stoics). The Messiah was ordained by God to suffer before entering his Jewish eschatological glory (Lk. 24:26; cf. Acts 3:18–21; 1 Pet. 1:11).
Such theology is simply summarized in passages like Hebrews 9:28, “so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Such salvation assumed the Jewish apocalyptic framework. God sent his Messiah the first time as a sacrifice to justify/acquit sinners (Rom. 5:9; Tit. 3:7), so that they might be found blameless on the Last Day (1 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 3:13), thus inheriting eternal life/immortality (Rom. 2:7), which of course would be administrated “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (v. 10, niv). The redemption of Jerusalem (Lk. 2:38; 24:21) and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6) were never in question. Jesus will indeed sit enthroned as “the king of Israel” (Mt. 27:42; Jn. 1:49), “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30), because “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). In this way, the apostolic tradition could be summarized as Jewish cruciform-apocalypticism, i.e. Jewish apocalypticism infused with a theology of the Cross.
Both apocalyptic and cruciform thought take as their maxim confidence in God alone. All forms of “confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3) are completely anathema to Christian thought. God alone establishes our righteousness, for our works are meaningless (as in any court of law) when our sins are judged (cf. Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:5). And God alone will cleanse the earth and create a “home of righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:13, niv). We are called to set our hope fully on the return of Christ (1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:10), putting our faith in the Cross alone (Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:22f) that we might be found in him on the Last Day not having a righteousness of our own, but that which is accounted from God according to our faith (Phil. 3:9; Rom. 10:3).
In light of such faith, how then did Jesus and the apostles view the role of the Jews (both believing and unbelieving) in relation to the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and the land of Israel? In a word, we might summarize it as stewardship. The Jews were called to be “tenants” (Lev. 25:23, niv), entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), which were to be exemplified in the temple, city, and land. The Messiah would come to his temple (Zech. 6:13; Mal. 3:1), rule from Jerusalem (Is. 2:2–4; 59:20ff), over Israel and all of the earth (Zech. 9:10; Ps. 72:8). The Jews were to honor God and exemplify these realities through righteous stewardship. Though Jesus criticized the wicked stewardship of the temple (Mt. 21:12–13, par.) and the city (Mt. 23:37; Lk. 13:34), he never rejected their assumed role in redemptive history (cf. “the city of the great King,” Mt. 5:35). When he spoke the parable of the unrighteous tenants (Mt. 21:33–44, par.), he was not redefining the “vineyard” (v. 33), but rather indicting the poor stewardship of it.
Could it be that zealotry was the primary factor in this bad stewardship? I believe it certainly played a large part. The same ideology that drove Peter’s satanic declaration (Mt. 16:22) probably also motivated the zealot-minded Pharisees in their quest to preserve their nation and bring about the kingdom of God. Unfortunately, such zealotry is the embodiment of confidence in the flesh (i.e., “the things of man,” Mt. 16:23), which inevitably results in various forms of injustice—e.g., the love of money and power (Mt. 23:25), the shedding of innocent blood (Mt. 23:34), the beating of fellow servants (Mt. 24:49), etc. Like the prophets before him (cf. Isa. 10:1–4; Jer. 5:20–31; Mic. 2:1–3; etc.), Jesus warned that unjust stewardship would result in divine discipline, which is how we must interpret the disaster of ad 70 (akin to the disasters of 722 and 587 bc). Not only was zealotry the divine mechanism (heaping up of sins before God by the glorification of the flesh), but it was also the human mechanism (provoking the Romans) for the destruction of Jerusalem.
If this was the case with Israel in the first century, how then should we as followers of Jesus relate to modern Israel and its Zionist agenda? Though a detailed analysis of Zionism in the 20th and 21st century is beyond the scope of this paper, we can conclude with a few broad comparisons between first century Judaism and modern Judaism.
Though modern Zionism originally sought to establish itself on a generally secular basis (a homeland for ethnic Jews), it has always had a religious element (God gave this land to the Jews), and this element has become stronger over time, seeking a “return” (Heb. aliyah) from some type of religious exile (Gk. diaspora, meaning “scattering, dispersion”). As Hebrew University Professor Aviezer Ravitzky put it, “when Zionism reawakened the desire for a concrete homeland, it concomitantly aroused from its slumber the yearning for the Holy Land. And the latter is now risen and staking its claim.”
Before WWII most Jews (both liberal and orthodox) rejected Zionism. Liberals saw no naturalistic justification for such a thing, while most orthodox (especially the Hasidic, or “ultra-orthodox”) viewed a return from exile apart from the end of the age and the coming of the Messiah as inappropriate, or even blasphemous. After WWII and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became the majority view, condemning any form of non-Zionism as anti-Semitic.
Moreover, after the Six Day War in 1967, Zionism began to take on more and more messianic connotations. God had miraculously given the Jews the land in preparation for the coming of the Messiah who would finish the job. So Jewish scholar Paul Scham describes,
A new Zionist ideology became dominant among some “national religious” Israelis following the 1967 Six Day War. Developed largely by Rav Kook’s son, Rabbi Tsevi Yehuda Kook, it taught that the Zionist movement and the State were on the verge of bringing the Messiah, as proved by Israel’s seemingly miraculous victory and conquest of the West Bank. Religious Zionism, which had only a small part in Zionism’s “heroic age” of the 1930’s, led by its right-wing vanguard Gush Emunim, pioneered the establishment of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza so that Jews would control as much land as possible in Erets Yisra’el, in the expectation of the imminent messianic age.
This “messianic Zionism,” as often referred to, has fueled the settlement movements in the West Bank and Gaza for the last half century, and very much like its first-century zealot ancestor, it views “the state of Israel as the fulfillment of the biblical vision of redemption.”
The majority of Haredim (ultra-orthodox Jews) reject this kind of Zionist zealotry. On the opposite end of the spectrum, two Hasidic groups, Neturei Karta and Satmar Hasidism, continue to completely reject the entire Zionist enterprise as a blasphemous sin against God and the hope of His coming Messiah. One cannot help but make a comparison to first-century Judaism—on the one end the Essenes who withdrew and completely rejected the Jerusalem-based Pharisees and Sadducees as compromised and worldly, while on the other end the zealots who believed their efforts to be the divinely ordained mechanism for the coming of the end. Unfortunately, it was the minority of zealots (followed by a complicit majority of Pharisees and Sadducees) that caused the calamity of 70 ad.
There are many similarities between modern messianic Zionism and first-century Jewish zealotry, both theologically and practically. Both seek the ideal restoration of the ancient theocratic Jewish state. Both downplay any apocalyptic view of the end of the age and the Messiah’s role in that scenario. And both believe in a synergistic relationship between the strength of the flesh and the power of God. Jesus condemned all such confidence in the flesh. And I fear that the same kind of divine discipline that came upon zealotry in 70 ad will come upon Zionism in the future. Just as Jewish zealotry provoked both God and the Romans, I believe messianic Zionism (and the complicit majority of Zionists) are provoking both God and the Arab nations surrounding Israel. May we all, Jew and Gentile alike, be given grace to wholly forsake our confidence in the flesh and heed the words of Jesus the Messiah, “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (Jn. 12:25).
Works Cited
Bauer, W. F., W. Danker, W. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Ben-Sasson, H. H., ed. A History of the Jewish People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1967.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
Charlesworth, James H. and Loren L. Johns, eds. Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
Farmer, W. R. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956.
Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981.
Horsley, R. A. and J. S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999.
Donaldson, T. L. “Zealot.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Revised Edition. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Volume 4. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988.
Evans, Craig A. “Hillel, House of” and “Shammai, House of.” In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. New Updated Edition. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.
Koch, Klaus. The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: A Polemical Work on the Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy. Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1972.
Mendelsohn, S. “Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.” In The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer. Volume 3. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906.
Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70. 3 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1971.
_____. “Mr. Sanders’s Pharisees and Mine.” In Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992): 143–169.
Nolland, John. Luke 9:21–18:34. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 35B. Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1998.
Ravitzky, Aviezer. “Zionism and Orthodox Judaism.” In The Encyclopedia of Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green. Volume 3. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000.
Rowley, H. H. The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation. Revised edition. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946.
Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC – AD 100. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.
Scham, Paul. “Zionism.” In The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Second Edition. Edited by Adele Berlin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Shimoni, Gideon. The Zionist Ideology. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1995.
Ton, Josef. Suffering, Martyrdom, and Rewards in Heaven. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997.
Witherington, Ben, III. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008.