1This is the second part of our look at the leadership in Israel, especially those who Jesus and the disciples encountered. In our first post (see Leadership groups in First Century Israel), we look at specific positions such as High Priest and scribes. In this article we will discuss leadership organizations, the institutions, and factions or sects of Israelite first century society.
We will start with the central institution in Jewish religious and communal life in the first century AD in Israel and in the wider empire: the synagogue. While not mentioned explicitly in the Old Testament, its development is rooted in the Jewish experience of exile, and by the time of Jesus and the early Church, synagogues were widespread throughout Judea, Galilee, and even any area in the empire with a Jewish population.
The synagogue was the place for conducting numerous tasks. It was the community place of worship, Torah reading and teaching (Luke 4:16–20), prayer and psalm singing, and occasional fasting and public lamentation. It had a key role in education: boys were instructed in the Torah and Jewish law, while adults focused on teaching from scribes and teachers of the law. There is limited evidence some women may have received formal instruction in basic literacy and religious texts, but the evidence is not conclusive. It was the place of assembly for announcements, community decisions, and charity distribution and care for the poor. Judicially, the synagogue resolved local disputes (Matt. 10:17). Local councils were connected to the synagogue. The synagogue could impose discipline (John 9:22) or expel members for doctrinal or moral reasons. Unlike the Temple, synagogues did not perform sacrifices but were places of worship and learning.
By the first century AD, synagogues were the heart of Jewish religious, educational, and communal life. They provided a decentralized and adaptable system of worship that supported Jewish identity, especially outside of Israel. For the early Christians, synagogues were both a platform for preaching and, increasingly, a site of opposition and separation.
A synagogue had several leaders. Chief among these was the synagogue ruler. He was responsible for order and choosing readers and speakers (Mark 5:22; Acts 13:15). The Hazzan (an attendant or servant) cared for scrolls, prepared the building, and sometimes led prayers. Elders: Respected men of the community involved in decision-making and discipline. Readers and Interpreters: Read Scripture in Hebrew and translated/explained it in Aramaic.
In the same way we have political parties, Israel had parties or factions. Due to their religious nature, they would also be called sects. It was kind of like a mix of a political party and a religious group in one. Remember, in first century Israel, as in the rest of the ancient world, the idea of a separation of religion and state was not even considered. For those groups who did not have a strong religious component, it was not a matter of conscience but of the group’s interest or focus.
These factions were not like modern political parties. It is difficult to find a modern example that illustrates how these factions functioned. They didn’t campaign or hold formal membership like today’s parties, nor were they organized around policy platforms. Yet, the idea of a club doesn’t get it either. These groups were a set of like-minded people who sought to influence society along with the powers of the nation. While they were not overly organized, this is not to say there was not some degree of organization and management.
The Pharisees are the faction you probably heard about the most. The Pharisees were a movement emphasizing strict observance of the Torah and oral tradition. Membership was voluntary but required strict adherence to purity laws. Many Pharisees were middle-class, often scribes or rabbis. The Pharisees believed in the authority of the whole Old Testament along with traditions handed down outside the Old Testament. In contrast with others, they believed in a future resurrection, the existence of angels and a spiritual realm, along with an afterlife. They were criticized for hypocrisy but respected for piety. For more information about Pharisees, see our article on them, Pharisees.
The Sadducees were the faction most at odds with the Pharisees. They were mostly priestly aristocracy, often wealthy and politically powerful. Being a Sadducee was not a voluntary association like with the Pharisees; it was tied to status and lineage. They rejected spiritual realities such as angels and the afterlife as well as the concept of a resurrection. They only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament as authoritative yet did not reject the rest of the Old Testament as without value. They were not as strict with the keeping of the law as the Pharisees, but that is not to say it was not still especially important to them. Unlike the Pharisees, they were open to collaborating with Roman authorities. The High Priest, almost all the chief priests, and many priests would have been Sadducees.
A smaller but still important faction was the Herodians, a political group aligned with Herod the Great and his dynasty. They were not a religious sect but a political faction which included Jews who supported Roman rule and Herodian politics. This is not to say they were not good religious Jews, but that religious practices and observances were not the concern of this group. They advocated cooperation with Rome and strengthening the power of the Herodian Dynasty. The Herodians were opponents of Jesus when he threatened the political status quo.
The Sanhedrin was the main governing council of Israel. The word “Sanhedrin” means “council.” The Sanhedrin was traditionally made up of 71 members (70 + the High Priest as president). Think of a Jewish council as something like a combination of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Every area of Israel had its own council, but the Sanhedrin was the supreme council for all of Israel. There is a caveat to this in that Israel was under the control of Rome. Therefore, Rome had the ultimate authority and appointed rulers to govern their territories. They appointed governors such as Pontius Pilate in Judea. Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, was the Roman appointed tetrarch of Galilee (sort of king of the area). This area is west and just north of the Sea of Galilee. His brother, Philip, was the tetrarch of the area north and east of the Sea of Galilee. His territory went north through Caesarea Philippi to north of Mt. Hermon. It is interesting that the Decapolis, a region consisting of a group of ten Hellenistic (Greek influenced) cities primarily located southeast of the Sea of Galilee and east of the northern part of the Jordan River, was under the overall control of the Roman governor of Syria. Each of these rulers was under the direct authority of the emperor of Rome.
This is a simplified view of the situation, but you can get the idea. The impact on the Sanhedrin and the Jewish people was they did not fully control their own country. They were an occupied land. The Sanhedrin was the supreme authority in Israel to the extent that the Romans allowed. Generally, Rome did not limit the Sanhedrin’s authority over the local Jewish councils. While there was a mix of the civil and religious authority of the Jewish councils, Rome, for the most part, stayed in their civil lane. When one of the Roman rulers moved to the religious lane, it usually caused serious issues. Therefore, Rome gave unique religious freedoms to the Jewish people as long as they stayed peaceful and paid their taxes. This was not just in Israel but also to Jews in the empire as a whole.
Membership in the Sanhedrin included a mix of chief priests, elders, and scribes. The High Priest was automatically the ruling member of the Sanhedrin, with just about all chief priests being members. Other members were added by appointment, not election. Likely chosen by existing members, the high priest, or the political rulers (Herodian dynasty or Roman procurators). Qualifications consisted of being male with full Israelite ancestry. Additionally, they would need a reputation for being wise, knowledgeable in the law, and respected community leaders. They were often from aristocratic or priestly backgrounds. They were not paid for being on the Sanhedrin, but most were already wealthy and influential. It would be exceedingly rare for a synagogue ruler or a rabbi to be a member of the Sanhedrin unless it was due to another position he held, such as an elder. Simply being aligned with the Sadducees or the Pharisees would not be enough to have you appointed as a member of the Sanhedrin.
To be clear, in these two articles we have talked about positions a man could hold and organizations he could be affiliated with. A man would hold a position and could then likewise be aligned with one of the various factions. One could be both a priest and a Sadducee (common), a scribe and a Pharisee (quite common), or an elder and a Pharisee or Sadducee. It would be rare for a priest or Levite to be a Pharisee, but some did sympathize with the Pharisees’ teachings. Rabbis were more likely to be Pharisees. A Herodian would possibly hold a political or governmental position rather than one of the positions we have discussed.
There are some combinations which were impossible. A man would not be both a Sadducee and a Pharisee. Nor would a Herodian be a Pharisee, as the Pharisees would not support the rule of a member of Herod’s family or Rome. Even though the Herodians and the Sadducees were friendly with the political authorities, a man would not be both. As the Herodians were much more connected to the Herod dynasty than the Sadducees would be comfortable with, and the Sadducees were much more religious than the Herodians were concerned about as a group.
Summary Table of Roles and Factions
| Role/Group | How Attained | Can they Overlap? | Member of Sanhedrin |
| High Priest | Hereditary, appointed by Rome | Chief Priest, Sadducee | Yes |
| Chief Priest | Priestly family, elite status | Sadducee | Yes |
| Priest | Hereditary (Aaronic lineage) | Sadducee, sometimes Pharisee | Yes, but seldom |
| Scribe | Education, legal training | Often Pharisee | Yes |
| Elder | Community recognition | Can be priest, Pharisee, or Sadducee | Yes |
| Rabbi | Popular title for teacher | Scribe, Pharisee, Elder | Yes, but if just a rabbi it would be exceedingly rare. |
| Synagogue Rulers | Community recognition | Role did not mix with other roles for the most part | Not likely. |
| Pharisee | Voluntary membership, education | Often Scribes, Rabbis, | Yes |
| Sadducee | Priestly, aristocratic lineage | Chief Priests, Elder | Yes |
| Herodian | Political alliance with the Herodian dynasty | Rare overlap with Pharisees or Scribes | As a political group it would be quite rare. |
I hope the last two articles have helped your understanding of life in Israel in the first century. You should better understand more of the types of leaders and institutions Jesus dealt with and was confronted by.
Until the next time we see you here at CultivatingFaith.org, God Bless! #CultivatingFaithOrg
For more resources on related topics see “Biblical Background” under the Resource menu.