E. P. Sanders contended Judaism in the Second Temple period was not a religion of individual salvation (278). God made a covenant with the people of Israel and it is the people who will be preserved. The eschatology of Israel is a national eschatology rather than personal. What “future hopes” are found in the first century, they are hopes which concern the people of Israel as a whole rather than individuals. Are first century Messianic Hopes and the Jewish Revolt
It is likely most Jews longed for freedom from Rome. Even the line of Herod, which owed its power to Rome, would have preferred to have independence and self-rule. Rome was and ever-present reality in the politics of first century Palestine and freedom from Roman manipulation would have been the dream of Jews of every class and party. The problem is in defining that freedom: does that mean Rome is destroyed completely? Does that mean Rome rules Palestine but grants near-independence for Israel? Does Israel go back to Hasmonean rule? Would Rome be preferred to the Herodians? Hope for the future therefore ran from storing up arms for a time of revolt to praying quietly God will do something to change things. Some groups did not have much of a future hope (the Sadducees, for example), while others had a rather complex view of the near future, one in which they played a key role (the Essenes, for example).
Sanders observes these hopes were often expressed negatively, in the form of complaints, protests, and insurrections (280). There were people in the first century who were ready to fight Rome given the right circumstances. Josephus describes a “fourth philosophy” which he claims was founded by Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Sadducee in A.D. 6 (Antiq. 18.3-10, War 2.117f). When Archelaus was deposed, Rome sent a prefect to govern Judea. In order to organize and tax more efficiently, a census was ordered. Judas rallied some followers and fought against taxation because it represented foreign rule. His slogan was “no master but God,” a rather spiritual sounding phrase to be sure, but it is not exactly clear how “no master but God” gets worked out in the real world. This “fourth philosophy” has been a bit of a mystery to historians, sometimes identified with the Zealots who started the war in 66 and were the last survivors of the war at Masada.
At least some of these Zealots were assassins, known as the Sicarii. There are problems with this identification, not the least of which is the 60 years between Judas and the War in which there is nothing said about the fourth philosophy or Zealots. Judas is not identified as a Zealot, and although there is a brief insurgency in 44, the idea of rebellion against Rome is unmentioned until the war actual breaks in 66. These revolutionary movements had one thing in common – they came at a time when the Roman Empire was not able to pay close attention to the back-water province of Judea. In A.D. 6 Archelaus was deposed and there was some question who would succeed him, another Herod or Roman rule. In 66 Nero was in his last days and was becoming more unstable. In 69 there were four emperors and the Roman Empire was distracted. It looked like a revolution might have a chance to succeed.
A more common method of protest for the Jews in this period was passive resistance. There were a number of points in century or so before the war when Jews demonstrated their willingness to die rather than allow something which transgressed their laws. For example, the protest against Pilate when he proposed to put Roman standards up in the Temple (War 2.169-174) and the protests made to Petronius when Caligula demanded his image be placed in the Temple (Antiq. 18.261-278). Nationalistic protests associated with the Temple sometimes erupted during Festivals in Jerusalem.
Between these two extremes (aggressive action against Rome and passive resistance even to death) is the belief that God or his representative will, at some point, intervene in history on behalf of his people. This view is represented in Qumran in the War Rule and in the Psalms of Solomon 17. Psalms of Solomon 17 looks forward to a Davidic messiah who will march on Jerusalem, banish the gentiles from the city, reassemble the tribes of Israel and establish the ideal kingdom (Sanders 285). The War Rule has similar hopes, but the only true Israel which is left is the sectarian community at Qumran. The messiah will lead them into Jerusalem and destroy the sinful Israelites (i.e. non-Qumran Essenes?) as well as the Gentiles.
It is God himself who will strike the blow against Rome, not individual revolutionaries. There were a number of other “messianic pretenders” in the first century who rallied a small number of followers with the hope of overthrowing Rome. The Romans dealt swiftly and violently with each of these leaders, but the hope of an imminent intervention by the Lord never died. Even while the Temple portico is burning a prophet told a crowd to go into the Temple to await help from God (J.W. 6.283, cf. 1.347).
The middle position, “ready to fight but hoping for a miraculous intervention” seems to represent a wide variety of groups including “hardcore calculating revolutionaries” and the more pacifist wing (Sanders 288). Perhaps when the times were not right for revolution and there was nothing to protest, everyone more or less harbored the hopes of this category.
It is interesting to observe how the Messiah was much different than what the Jewish people had expected. Due to their oppression and hostility towards the Roman government, the Jews were more than ready for this Messiah to show up and bring justice to Jerusalem. The more oppressed by the Gentiles that the Jews became, I am sure the greater the expectations were for the Messiah. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:5 Jesus says, “God blesses those who are humble, for they will inherit the whole earth”. A Messiah that was promoting a passive attitude was hardly what the majority of Jewish people were expecting, which is why many doubted that Jesus Christ was the true Messiah.
In analyzing the eventual Jewish revolt against the Romans, I do believe that one of the most overwhelming factors for the revolt, was that foreign rulers indeed were ruling over Judea for an extended amount of time. And while many Jews may have dreamed for an eventual overthrow of Roman autonomy, many Jews questioned as well if a revolt against Rome in totality would do any good in reality (Tomasino, 280-281). In analyzing the overall way the Jews felt, it must have been a very difficult reality to face. To exemplify further, the last time the Jews revolted was in the Maccabean revolt and the Hasmonean Empire came about. The results of that were not good for the Jewish people in all honestly. I wonder if any Jews took this into consideration, when they thought about the overall idea of a revolt against Rome? While it may have been a dream for many of the Jews to rid their beloved nation of foreign rule, at first many of the Jews may have been opposed to the idea. However; based, on a numerous amount of factors such as the heavy tax burden’s, the book of Daniel and being tired of foreign rule, many of the Jewish people obtained the willpower and motivation necessary to indeed rebel against the Romans. Even if numbers and strength may have not been on their side.
It certainly is interesting looking into the many factors of the Jewish revolt against the Romans. You made a good point in saying that the Jews had a lot of factors to consider before deciding to make that jump, such as the overall outcome that came from their previous massive revolt, the Maccabean revolt. It is certainly likely that the Jews were ready for change, whether it be from the Messiah or by taking matters into their own hands. In the first century, thee were definitely Jews who were sick and tired of the oppression that they were facing; however, it is true that there may have been several who were not complacent with the given circumstance.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
I find it odd that the Jews of all people would have learned not to fight without God’s direct blessing. Their past victories and failures have shown they stand no hope against anything if God is not helping them. If God had said band together and I will give Rome into your hands then Rome would have fallen within a decade or less.
Even from a human perspective they had to have known they stood no chance against Rome army vs army. Rome was the destroyer of nations, anything that came against them broke and anything they attacked fell. Rome only eventually fell from within.
During the first century of Roman Empire, Jewish messianic expectations ran high. “One factor encouraging these notions was ‘chronomessianism’, the belief that the Scriptures predicted the time of the Messiah’s coming” (Tomasino, p. 292). Specifically, the book of Daniel talks about an exact time frame at which to expect the Messiah. However, the depiction of the Messiah was one of a warrior-king rather than the pacifist Jesus that we see in the New Testament. In reality, the Jews were not under severe persecution and did not face a ton of oppression from Rome. They were just not content with the idea that they were under foreign rule even though God had promised them that, when they were no longer considered an apostate, they would once again become a great nation.
It is easy to see what the expectations of the Jews were concerning the Messiah. They were so caught up in the idea that He was meant to free them as a nation from the rule of Rome. Many of them thought that Jesus would become the king of Israel in a earthly sense and that he would raise an army to fight against Rome. Even Peter may have shared this line of thought for some time. I base this primarily off of Peters actions when Jesus was arrested. I believe it was not until after His resurrection that Peter truly understood Jesus’ mission. It took time for the Jews understand the true nature of Messiah’s mission. Even years after Jesus ascended, there were attempts to rebel against Rome. These people still believed that the Messiah was yet to come and that He would rule just as king David of the old testament did.
Wow that’s extensive. I remember briefly studying / looking over the Sicarii and their distinctive knives that they used. It’s interesting to look back in history and see ‘Jewish zealots’, or as you pointed out, assassins in that sort of culture or systematic belief. In any case, between aggression towards Rome and passive resistance against death, I think an aggressive stance towards Rome would be more likely to succeed. As my grandfather’s pastor so adequately put it once, ‘we are all going to die of something, sometimes it’s war’. When it comes to a civilization like Rome, ‘resisting death’ depending on how advanced your society may be isn’t always likely to succeed. They were pretty adept to torture and killing — just ask Jesus.
I think that it is a good point that the Jewish hopes were for the nation not as much the individual. That is why removing the pagan overlords was so important. The nations of Israel and Judah in the Old Testament were always characterized by their kings. If it was an evil king, he would set up idols. If it was a righteous king, he would tear down idols. Ultimately, they were looking forward to the Davidic rulership to be restored. Because they were convinced that they were now righteous after the exile, the king was bound to be very righteous and the kingdom prosperous.
I wrote about this briefly in my paper, but I will rehash it here. It is interested that the Jewish ideal of the messiah is almost a deus ex machina. They have an expectation of the Messiah coming at the bleakest moment and destroying their enemies, granting them the freedom, independence and justice that they desire. Perhaps this is why so many people rejected the true Messiah, Jesus. He certainly did not fit their ideals of Davidic Warrior King, so they decided to reject him outright.
deus ex machina – this is an interesting way to put it, since the messianic expectation is literally God breaking into the story and rescuing his people. (although it is usually dismissed as a poor plot device in modern film-making)
i remember something along the lines of what the Jewish people wanted their Messiah to be and then what Jesus did from my Bible teacher when i was in 9th grade. the Jews wanted their Messiah to come in riding on a horse and collection the masses to overthrow the Roman government and the Israelites reclaim their homeland as their own. there, the Messiah will be the new king of Israel and no one will conquer them again. what Jesus did was the complete opposite. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt and told the people to submit themselves to those in authority and to give what is Caesar’s what is his and to God what is His. Jesus even talked to a Roman Centurion and healed his servant because the Centurion had more faith in Him than anyone He has met.
if you were someone who had power and you rode into a city on a horse, who were making yourself known that you came to the city/nation declaring war. however, if you did the same thing but with a colt, then you came in with peace. i’ve always thought that this was a cool cultural expression back then where people knew who you were about based on which animal you rode on and if you were someone of power or not.
4/9- Reading throughout this blog, there were many things that came to mind on what to write about in connection with how we view the world today. Since early on in the New Testament (not only during Roman times) we see that the Jewish people are under political fire; this brings about many problems that would make them have some thoughts that would relate to hope. Since the Lord’s people were under such political heat, they imagined the promised savior would be one who would deliver them from such struggles. Putting myself in that position, with the same struggles that they had I too would imagine the savior to free me from such things. During the Roman period in this time, yes I do think that the image of the Messianic savior gave them hope for the future to go on. Looking forward and understanding this, it makes sense why Jesus was rejected by His own kind due to the fact that He didn’t deliver them from political struggles; instead He insisted on loving one another and pursuing a relationship with the Father. I think at some point during the time of Jesus the Jews thought back on politics throughout time and were disappointed in what He brought to the table. We see that in the book of John this “Messianic Hope” was trying to be portrayed to the Jews with the theme, in reassuring them that He is indeed the promised savior by telling of the major highlights in His ministry. Personally, during the time politically speaking the Jews were treated horribly for the most part & their hope in a political savior is what kept them going / so faithful throughout those time periods.
I found it a very interesting to try to understand the question of freedom from Rome and what that would look like. Would that require just being separate from their rule, or would it mean that Rome would have to be completely destroyed to be totally separate? Even though there was a known belief that something had to change, they didn’t all agree on something or what that looked like. “Different groups and individuals had their opinions” (Tomasino, 280). I think that oddly enough there are a lot of parallels to what we have seen today. With a big example of COVID. There was of course an understanding goal of a need for change, but we had a lot of different opinions of what that looked like or how we were supposed to get there. There were so many different opinions that lead to anger and fear, which all lead to different reactions. Some believed that they needed to take matters into their own hands and try to fight off Rome, much like some of the violence that we saw during the riots, and others sat a bit more quiet, much like those that just wanted the storm to blow over or expect someone else to fix it.
You mentioned three distinct Israelite responses to the presence of Rome. What do you think was the best response? Were those who were waiting for the “right moment” simply cowards, or do you view this as patience and faith in God? My first thought in response to this was that it was a fear response. The concept of passive resistance without taking the initiative to rise up first struck me as odd as well- was this an attempt to obey Christ’s call for pacifism? While it seems difficult to determine what the right response would be in this situation, I can imagine that I would act as those who were passive in their response did. It seems admirable to me that this group of people was willing to die in defense of their beliefs, but not willing to undermine authority; I do think this path is tainted however when it is accompanied by grumbling and complaining. I do believe that some Jews did not act up against the Romans because they viewed it as better than being subject to the Hasmoneans; at least the Romans allowed general freedom for the Jews in their practices, except for the heavy presence of taxes (Tomasino, 2003). In my opinion, had the Jews had any accurate idea of what the Messiah would truly be like, more would have risen up against Rome. The expectation of a strong and glamorous king seemed to be the catalyst of hope for several Jews.
What first stood out to me from this article was when it discussed what hope looked like during the Jewish Revolt. “Hope for the future therefore ran from storing up arms for a time of revolt to praying quietly God will do something to change things” (Long, 13). These hopes were portrayed through complaints, protests, etc. This reminded me of how the world is currently. There are new occurrences of tragedy or protests every time you watch/read the news. There are new school shootings, protests centered around abortion, the community, etc. Many Americans today are not storing up arms for a time of revolt, but there are many who are praying for things to change. During the revolt, there were also groups who were prepared to fight, but who chose to wait for God to intervene. This group differs greatly from the first one listed. While the first group was more vocal with their hopes through protests, this group seemed to want hope to come through peaceful means unless fighting was the only option. I would argue that these two types of groups still exist to this day. In politics, there are those who want to lead protests against what they believe should be changed whereas others silently pray for change without taking persuasive action unless it is deemed necessary.
“ready to fight but hoping for a miraculous intervention”. This doesn’t sound far off from our position as Christians that we ought to have action with our faith, or that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17). It does not really surprise me that this is the type of view that represents a wide variety of groups in the case of the Jewish revolt. But the point of this is that they had messianic hopes. I find it interesting how these hopes were capitalized on by different leaders that created followings in effort to overthrow the Roman government, with the hope that God would miraculously intervene. Nevertheless, Hope is the driving force behind these events. We find that this same hope is the driving force behind or ahead of a lot of things across many cultures. Even as I write this response, I see people on the street corners waiting for someone to stop and give them a few dollars in hope that they can use that money towards whatever their next step is. People like that aren’t always just sitting there bored, but they have this motivation that seems to be rooted in hope that they will get enough to get by or to pay for whatever that need is. Hope can look like that, or hope can look as broad as a nation of Jews hoping for their messiah to come and save them from this world power that they would not otherwise be saved from.
Within the first century, Judaism harbored many Messianic hopes relating to the near future, believing that this Messianic figure would bring about renewal and the end of gentile oppression against Israel. This hope was more associated with national Israel than individualistic salvation that many associates with modern Judeo-Christian thought, promoting a nationalistic eschatology that emphasizes the redeeming of collective Israel.
Most Jews during the first century desired freedom from foreign rule, although the meaning of this sentiment differed among distinctive groups. For some, this meant complete freedom from Roman rule, for others it may have meant a return to Hasmonean rule. Questions regarding whether Herodian rule was preferable to direct rulership under Rome were also in consideration, as it seemed unlikely that Israel would return to any sort of pre-exilic independency. Additionally, many Jews struggled with navigating how to act upon these future hopes of a Messianic kingdom and renewal of Israel, with some advocation for rebellion and zealous uprisings, while others argued for passive resistance against the gentile powers. Within the first century, several uprisings led by false Messiahs were enacted among the Jewish people, ending abruptly as the Roman Empire killed these revolt leaders swiftly. This willingness for violence and upheaval against the ruling powers was at times exhibited even among the more passive Jewish people, for example, attempts to place Roman imagery in the Jewish temple by Pilate led to protests and threats of revolt.
Inevitably, what undergirded much of these Messianic hopes was the desire for the return of God to save Israel and judge the nations, in proper Jewish apocalyptic fashion. This hope led to motifs of God as a divine warrior being used and many second temple texts being produced that contain eschatological hopes of renewal for Israel and judgment of the world.