Jesus had friends among the Pharisees
Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel sat on the Sanhedrin
The Pharisees had to decide if Jesus was just another fraud (there were many) or the real deal. The Sadducees cared primarily about Jesus challenging the fragile order of Roman rule. We don’t know the final vote among the Pharisees, but even if they all agreed to let Jesus flame out or prove himself, the Sadducees owned the majority vote.
Saturday of the Fifth Week of Lent
Ezekiel 37:21-28
John 11:45-56
“Many of the Jews had come to Mary,” begins John’s Gospel today. The “Mary” here is the other half of Martha and Mary. Raising their brother from the dead was seen by several friends of Mary and associates of the Lazarus clan. The miracle was astounding on several levels of life in the Jewish community — from the poor and the wealthy, to the agrarian community and the city dwellers. It was natural that some would know Pharisees, holders of the cultural and liturgical practices of the Jews.
But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done (John 11:46).
We may think of the Pharisees as the ruling group, which was true regarding interpretations of scripture and maintenance of the Mosaic law. However, the upper-crust Jews were the Sadducees. The chief priests were Sadducees, more earnestly subservient and financially aligned with the Romans than the Pharisees. Politically powerful Sadducees held most of the seats on the Jewish council — the Sanhedrin.
Because the Lazarus family was well-heeled, their friends would have been involved with Pharisees, the less powerful group. Pharisee-associated friends would have traveled to mourn with Mary at Lazarus’ death. They saw Jesus raise him, and then, returning to their synagogues, they reported on the amazing incident.
It’s a bit of re-framing for Catholics today, yet the Jesus-friendly members of the Sanhedrin were Pharisees. We’re not sure how many supported Jesus, but there were many. The Sadducees worried about how the Romans would react to Jesus and had nothing good to say about him. Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel (the teacher of Saul/St. Paul), all three Pharisees who sat on the Sanhedrin, attempted at various times to steer the Sanhedrin to view Jesus in a more positive light.
At this moment, however, the conciliatory position of Jesus’ supporters no longer held sway.
The phrase likely voiced by a Saducee chief priest in verse 47, “What are we going to do?” is interpreted by some to mean instead, “What are we doing?” The inflection difference is disdain. Rather than a question, the Sadducee likely meant, “We are doing nothing!” Something needed to be done.
The conversation at the Sanhedrin points out another significant difference between the members. The Sadducees reduced scripture to the five books of the Torah. No other writings mattered. The Pharisees found sacred importance in the books of the prophets. As stewards of those texts, they were more familiar with the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah, Micah, Ezekiel, and elsewhere, and took Jesus’ pattern-matching resemblance to the Messiah more seriously.
The Pharisees had to decide if Jesus was just another fraud (there were many) or the real deal. The Sadducees cared primarily about Jesus challenging the fragile order of Roman rule. We don’t know the final vote among the Pharisees, but even if they all agreed to let Jesus flame out or prove himself, the Sadducees owned the majority vote. The fraud or Messiah debate no longer had legs.
“If we leave him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come* and take away both our land and our nation.” (John 11:48)
At this point, another significant difference took over. The influential position of Jesus’ teaching — the resurrection of the dead — fell on deaf ears among the Sanhedrin. Jesus spoke to his apostles about losing this life to win the next. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They found his notions of “forever” and an eternal Kingdom fanciful. They did, however, fret over the hope such a promise gave, specifically if it would promote a revolution of willing soldiers, eager to die for a charismatic king.
Consequently, in an unexpected prophetic moment, Caiphas, the current chief priest and Sadducee, replied to the worry about the Romans.
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing, nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish. (John 11:49-50)
John adds, “So from that day on they planned to kill him.” Jesus had mere days to live.
We enter, now, into the readings of Holy Week. The ministry of Jesus is speeding up in intensity, but his presence is slowing down.
Death approaches, and Jesus’ accomplishment of revealing death’s limitation at the hand of God, even under the horrors of crucifixion, will change history forever.