Sadducee Superstars

 In my last post I referenced the Pharisees and some of the things that Jesus addressed in the Gospels. Interestingly, the Sadducees were not much of a hinderance in Jesus ministry. However, the Pharisees and Sadducees switched opinions after Christ's Resurrection. The Pharisees seemed more passive after the disciples started their evangelism, but the Sadducees howled in protest. What changed?

 Well, lets get some background. The Sadducees were the "Rockstars" of their Theological world. They do not appear much in Jewish history, in fact, they seem to sprout only right before Christ's coming and dwindle only a few years after. They were the wealthy elite; the 0 AD version of celebrities. Their beliefs were not so much based in traditionalTheology but in some very new (for their time) and controversial beliefs. Unlike the Pharisees, they did not hold to all the translations of the Law; instead they ignored all their predecessors and only recognized the written Scripture as authoritative. Ironically, the Sadducees fell into the ditch on the other side of the Theological road. The Pharisees added plenty of laws; the Sadducees listened to no one.

 What were their beliefs? Well, good question. Let's take a look.
Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

 We have other Scriptures that show us that the Sadducees held power in the Priestly lines. (Acts 4:1 & 5:17)

So why did the Sadducees suddenly care once the disciples took over?

The Resurrection. The Sadducees did not hold that resurrection was possible, and therefore found the disciple's claims blasphemous. It is important to note that the disciples were not blaspheming God's Word, but man's interpretation. The disciple's claims, if true, would ruin the comfortable Theology that they had instated, and they could not stand for that. In the book of Acts, we find that the current High Priest was indeed a Sadducee. So were many in the Sanhedrin. The rich and powerful were at the peak of their influence at this time. They were going to make sure they stayed that way.

So what can we learn from this group of Theologians? Well, Jesus did not much go out of His way to condemn them (unlike the woes of the Pharisees, see previous post). Interestingly, He had little to do with them. They only cared once their toes were stepped on.

In the Modern world we have many examples of Churches who hold their own "translation" of the Gospel and God's Commands. They do whatever they so please and find a verse that could be construed to support their point of view. Others are more likely to become the "wealth is power" types. We can all tend to assume our interpretation of the Bible is correct without consulting the opinion of others.

Conclusion

Does this mean I'm contradicting my last post? No, not at all. We should never hold man's opinion above God's Word. That being said, we should also remember to respect the revelation that God did give these Theologians while remembering that those men were flawed. God is unchanging, however, we are not. Due to this, what God may tell us may be different than what He told His people two, three, four, or five hundred years ago. Not because He changed His mind, but because the application has changed to those we are evangelizing.

Peter sums it up perfectly.
 ^{Acts 5:29} But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.

This was the error of both the Pharisees and Sadducees in very different forms. Let us heed Peter and not fall for the same flaw.