Herod: Crazy Like a Fox (Luke 13:32)

Who did Jesus call “a fox”? Herod.

While Jesus is on a teaching tour some Pharisees advise him to depart the region as Herod Antipas desires to kill him (Luke 13:31). Herod is the unscrupulous tetrarch of Judea who has already beheaded John the Baptist (Luke 9:9). Undaunted, Jesus fearlessly fires back a message for Herod (Luke 13:32-35). He begins by referring to the ruler with the unflattering epithet “that fox” (Luke 13:32).

And He [Jesus] said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.’” (Luke 13:32 NASB)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) summarizes:

Some Pharisees warn Jesus to flee from the murderous intentions of Herod Antipas, but he replies with an expression of contempt for that ‘fox’ [Luke 13:31-32]; he had a task to perform, which will conclude with his ‘perfecting’ in Jerusalem [Luke 13:33], and no Herod will be able to divert him from it. He has, therefore, no need to flee at this juncture. If Herod wants to kill him he had better go to Jerusalem! (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 568-69)

Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom (b. 1970) situates:

The context is Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem [Luke 9:51]. The Pharisees’ report reveals what was implicit in Luke 9:9: Antipas was not merely curious about Jesus but actually intending to kill him. It is not immediately clear why Luke included this short episode at this point in his narrative. The reader is told about Antipas’ intention to kill Jesus, but Luke tells of no further action on the side of the tetrarch. Even when Antipas finally met Jesus in Jerusalem, it was by the initiative of Pilate (Luke 23:7). Harold W. Hoehner [1935-2009] argues that Antipas could not kill Jesus immediately. Although he saw Jesus’ movement as a potential threat, he had no evidence that Jesus was actually causing political trouble. So the best he could do was to pose a threat so Jesus would leave his territory. Such a political manoeuvre was indeed fitting for Jesus’ designation of him as a ‘fox’ – a crafty coward. (Yamazaki-Ransom, The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative, 169-70)

There is no doubt that someone is attempting to intimidate Jesus but there is a question as to who is doing so. Though it is the Pharisees who alert Jesus of Herod’s ruinous desires (Luke 13:31), this faction is typically depicted in opposition to Christ (Luke 5:30, 6:2, 7, 7:30, 39, 11:38-39, 42, 43, 53, 12:1) which calls their motives into question: Is the allegation legitimate? Are they conscientiously alerting a fellow Jew of a plot against his life or is this a case of politics making strange bedfellows with the Pharisees using Herodian threats to initiate Jesus’ withdrawal which they themselves desire?

John A. Darr (b. 1953) acknowledges:

In this scene, Herod remains offstage. A report of murderous intentions on the part of Herod reaches Jesus through the Pharisees, who urge Jesus to leave the area (Luke 13:31). The fact that members of a group apparently inimical to Jesus (see Luke 11:53-12:1) are the sole source of this information arouses the reader’s suspicions both about the authenticity of the report and about the Pharisee’s true intentions in delivering it. In a rare occurrence in the Lukan narrative, the reader is given no authoritative guidelines (e.g. by the narrator) to help in assessing this account. (Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism And Lukan Characterization, 175)

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) presume:

The behavior of Pharisees here [Luke 13:31] is a good indication of how in-group and out-group boundaries work. Throughout the story, Jesus and his followers form an in-group opposed to the Pharisees, a hostile out-group. But now the Pharisees warn Jesus of Herod’s plan to kill him, thus doing him a favor. In the perception of the Pharisees, when it comes to Herod, Jesus forms part of their in-group, with Herod and his supporters forming an out-group. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 283)

Michael Card (b. 1957) perceives:

Due to an almost universal bias against the Pharisees, this story is almost always viewed with a negative slant. I would like to believe, however, that these particular Pharisees are showing a genuine concern for Jesus’ safety. We will see Jesus in the home of a Pharisee one last time in chapter 14 [Luke 14:1], and it will not necessarily be a negative encounter. In fact, Jesus will even heal a man with dropsy on that occasion, and yes, it will be on a Sabbath [Luke 14:1-6]. So perhaps this is a friendly warning. (Card, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination), 172)

Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom (b. 1970): scrutinizes:

It has been debated whether the Pharisees’ report was true or false as well as what their motive was. First, the portrayal of Antipas as a murderer is consistent with Luke’s totally negative portrayal up to this point in his narrative [Luke 3:19-20, 9:7-9]. Second, Jesus does not negate or question the Pharisees’ report. Thus it seems the Pharisees’ report was true. See Harold W. Hoehner [1935-2009] , Herod Antipas, pp. 175, 219; Richard J. Cassidy [b. 1942], Jesus, Politics, and Society, p. 51; contra Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943], Luke, pp. 218, 368. On the other hand, although some Pharisees were portrayed either neutrally or positively in Acts (notably Gamaliel [Acts 5:33-39] and Paul [Acts 23:6, 26:5]), in Luke’s Gospel they are consistently portrayed negatively. Thus it seems unlikely that they were reporting to Jesus about Antipas in order to help him. Contra Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920], Luke, p. 1030; Joseph B. Tyson [b. 1928], ‘Jesus and Herod Antipas’, Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960), pp. 239-46 (246); Martin Rese [b. 1935], ‘Einige Überlegungen zu Lukas XIII, 31-33’, in Jacques Dupont [1915-1998] (editor), Jésus aux origines de la christologie (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 40; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 201-25 (209-15). It is more likely that the Pharisees were using the information to run Jesus out of their territory. See Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 28; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 5th edition, 1922), p. 348; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], Luke p. 571; John A. Darr [b. 1953], Herod the Fox, pp.175-79. (Yamazaki-Ransom, The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative, 169)

Jesus does not question their motivation but instead instructs the Pharisees to “go and tell that fox...” (Luke 13:32). He is not, however, positioning the Pharisees as mediators between himself and his would be murderer. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) assumes:

This is not a command that Jesus gives to the Pharisees whom he would send back, but rather his rhetorical comment on their warning and the situation that faces him. He sees through Herod’s character. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), 1031)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) concurs:

Rather than flee, Jesus sends them back [Luke 13:32]. Are they speaking for Herod? Then they can deliver this message back to him. This is, of course, all rhetorical. (Johnson, Luke (Sacra Pagina), 218)

Jesus brazenly resorts to name calling against the powerful tetrarch, referring to him as “that fox” (Luke 13:32). The Greek alōpēx is almost universally rendered “fox” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). There are three New Testament references to foxes, all of which emanate from the lips of Jesus (Matthew 9:20; Luke 9:58, 13:32).

The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary defines:

The relatively few references in Scripture are to the common fox of Palestine, Vulpesvulgaris, a wild carnivore of the dog family, living usually on a diet of small animals and fruit, though its European relations may sometimes be found looking into trash cans during daylight hours as well as at night. This natural predator usually lives in burrows, the American red fox being a related species. Damage to vineyards by “the little foxes” (Song of Solomon 2:15) may have been a reference to jackals rather than to foxes. Similarly the 300 foxes caught by Samson in order to pair them for raids on Philistine corn fields, with lit torches tied to their tails (Judges 15:4-5), may have been jackals, which would have been more readily caught. Tobiah the Ammonite poured scorn on the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem by suggesting that even the tread of a fox would break the stones (Nehemiah 4:3). The craftiness of the fox was emphasized by our Lord’s description of Herod Antipas (Luke 13:32). (J.D. Douglas [1922-2003] and Merrill C. Tenney [1904-1985], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 76-77)

Though the term is consistently translated, H.K. Moulton (1903-1982) informs:

An Eskimo translator is faced with an inverted set of problems...When our Lord says of Herod, ‘Go and tell that fox...’ [Luke 13:32] the question comes back, ‘What kind of fox? We have grey, red, blue and white’. Remembering that the fox is the emblem of craftiness and destructiveness we ask which of the four Eskimo foxes is most like that, and the answer comes back, ‘None, our crafty animal is the wolverine’. So the wolverine it must be in the Eskimo Bible to get the meaning across to them, even if it means nothing to us. (Moulton, “Bible Translation”, Indian Journal of Theology 23.1-2 (January-June 1974), 16-17)

Some have seen the term as especially derogatory given its feminine gender. Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) typifies:

A vixen is a female fox and therefore not to be feared. By calling Herod a vixen, Jesus is saying he has nothing to fear from Herod. (Gundry, Commentary on Luke)

Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) counters:

We cannot infer that the feminine is used here in a contemptuous sense: but the masculine occurs in Song of Solomon 2:15. (Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 349)

Jesus is clearly using a figure of speech and does not intend to characterize Herod as an omnivorous four-legged mammal. Jan Joosten (b. 1959) delineates:

A different distinction established by linguists is that between denotation and connotation. While the meaning of a word may remain more or less stable, its affective impact and the mental images it calls up may vary. Some Greek words of the New Testament are given a connotation that is unusual in profane literature but explicable in light of Semitic models. A nice example is the use of the word ἀλώπηξ, “fox”, in Luke 13:32. While Greek (and modern European) usage would lead one to think Jesus qualifies Herod Antipas as a crafty person, Hebrew and Aramaic literature use the fox more often as an image of insignificance. Contextually, it is indeed more likely that Jesus qualifies Herod as “small-fry”, a person of no consequence. (Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala [b. 1962] and Ángel Urbán, “The Graceo-Semitic Vocabulary of the New Testament”, Sacred Text: Explorations in Lexicography, 119)

A reader must be careful not to impose the figurative connotations of the present age onto the ancient text. William W. Klein (b. 1946), Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) advise:

When Jesus called Herod Antipas a fox (Luke 13:32), his hearers understood “fox” to represent a certain value. To call someone a fox today would have different meanings or values, depending upon the culture (or subculture) involved. If a reader simply imposed a current value for “fox,” the original intent would be obscured or even lost. In some cultures, fox might have no connotative value, and the meaning would simply be opaque. Biblical revelation was communicated within cultures. It could not be otherwise, for all human language is culturally conditioned. (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 173)

Jesus is utilizing a metaphor. Brenda B. Colijn (b. 1952) explains:

As figures of comparison, metaphors have two parts: the subject of the comparison (often called the tenor) and the thing with which the subject is compared (often called the vehicle)...When Jesus calls Herod a fox (Luke 13:32), “Herod” is the tenor, and “fox” is the vehicle. Jesus uses the connotations of “fox” to suggest something about Herod. (Colijn, Images of Salvation in the New Testament, 36)

The metaphor defines Jesus’ relationship with Herod. Robert L. Brawley (b. 1939) discloses:

Some philosophers of language call the nonfigurative referent of a metaphor the subsidiary subject and the figurative referent the principal subject. Metaphors may produce epiphoric effects, that is, they may expand meaning beyond the subsidiary subject. But metaphors also generate diaphoric effects, that is, they may create meaning by evoking new ways of construing what we comprehend. When Jesus calls Herod a fox in Luke 13:32, he expands meaning beyond the nonfigurative referent of a four-footed mammal to the figurative—an epiphoric effect. But he also evokes a new way of construing his relationship to the potentate and his potency—a diaphoric effect. (Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts, 9)

The interpretive key is to determine what “fox” meant in the original context and where this understanding intersects with Luke’s depiction of Herod. What the fox implies today is not necessarily what was meant in Jesus’ day.

Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) compares:

Today the fox is viewed as clever and sly; this is one of the qualities attributed to it by the Greeks and in later rabbinic literature (often with negative connotations of deception and cunning). In other Jewish contexts, however, the fox is viewed as an insignificant creature (Nehemiah 4:3) or as a destroyer. Ezekiel identifies false prophets and prowling “jackals among ruins [Ezekiel 13:4].” Jesus’ comment may contain a variety of these connotations. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 123)

Joel B. Green (b. 1956) investigates:

The designation of Herod as a “fox” [Luke 13:32] must be understood, particularly since “fox” has a range of virtual, metaphorical properties not all of which are actualized here. For example, we read in the Lukan narrative no hint that Herod is particularly cunning or crafty. More appropriate is the metaphorical representation of Herod the fox as one who lacks the status or is impotent to carry out his threat. In this case, Herod’s rank would be relativized by the recognition that Jesus, whose mission is rooted in divine necessity, thus serves one of greater status and power than Herod or the Rome he represents. Herod’s threat is blunted because his design runs contrary to the divine will. A further foxlike trait is potentially actualized in Jesus’ use of this metaphor — namely, the proclivity of fox for malicious destructiveness: “Upon hearing of Herod’s threat,” then, “Jesus pegs the Tetrarch as a varmint in the Lord’s field, a murderer of God’s agents, a would-be disrupter of the divine economy.” (Green, The Gospel of Luke (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 536)

The fox transmits a variety of undertones. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) researches:

In rabbinic literature the fox was typical of low cunning (Berakoth 61b, citing Rabbi Akiba [40-137]; Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] II, 200f.), but it was also portrayed as an insignificant creature in comparison with the lion: ‘Be first in greeting every man; and be a tail to lions and be not a head to foxes’ (Pirkei Aboth 4:15). Both ideas have been detected here, the former by Burton Scott Easton [1877-1950] 221; Carroll Stuhlmueller [1923-1994], 147; and the latter by J.M. Creed [1889-1940] 186; Walter Grundmann [1906-1976], 288; probably both are present (T.W. Manson [1883-1958], The Sayings of Jesus, 276). Werner Grimm [b. 1945], 114-117, takes the point further and sees an allusion to king Saul (šā’ûl;cf. šû‘āl, ‘fox’) in contrast to the messianic ‘lion’ of the house of David (Genesis 49:9; Revelation 5:5). The saying would then contain an implicit messianic identification by Jesus; but in the absence of an explicit reference to the lion, this proposal is too speculative to be convincing. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 571)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:

In both classical and Hellenistic Greek alōpex, “fox,” was an epithet for a crafty or sly person. See Pindar [522-443 BCE], Pythian Odes 2.77-78; Plato [427-347 BCE], Republic 2.8 § 365c; Plutarch [45-120], Solon, Epictetus [55-135], Discourses 1.3, 7-8. In the Old Testament šû‘āl is used of foolish prophets (Ezekiel 13:4); but in rabbinic literature it later carries the Greek connotation. See Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 2.200-201. Martin Dibelius [1883-1947] (From Tradition to Gospel 162-63) thinks that Jesus would hardly have used the epithet and that it betrays Luke’s interest in the great ones of the earth. Possible, but far from certain! It is, moreover, farfetched to think that “fox” is used with further connotations of a contrast with “lion”—or of Saul with David, pace Werner Grimm [b. 1945]. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), 1031)

There is a recurring theme in these assessments: negativity. John A. Darr (b. 1953) portrays:

Almost without exception, the traits associated with foxes in the ancient Mediterranean world were pejorative. A very common notion was that the fox was intelligent. Though some fables depicted foxes as being wise and good, the vast majority portrayed the fox as using intelligence in a devious manner. That is, foxes were considered to be cunning, crafty, subtle, sly and mischievous, making up for a lack of physical strength with cleverness. The latter observation implies inferiority, a second trait commonly ascribed to foxes. The fox’s weakness and cowardice were often contrasted with the lion’s strength and courage. Thus, to call someone a fox could imply that the person was insignificant, lacking in true power despite the fact that he or she might accomplish things through cunning. A final trait ascribed to the fox was destructiveness, an attribute no doubt based on the actual experience of farmers who lost crops and livestock to these varmints. (Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism And Lukan Characterization, 180)

Given this data, “fox” carries several plausible associations. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) enumerates:

The signification of ἀλώπηξ (alōpēx) is debated (E. Earle Ellis [1926-2010] 1974:190): it can refer to (1) a person of no significance (Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 2:201; Nehemiah 4:3 [II Esdras 13:35 Septuagint]); (2) a deceiver, a person of cunning (which was the rabbinic force of the term; David Daube [1909-1999] 1956:191; Song of Songs Rabbah 15.1 on Song of Solomon 2:15); or (3) a destroyer (Ezekiel 13:4; Lamentations 5:18; I Enoch 89:10, 42-49, 55; A.R.C. Leaney [1909-1995] 1958:209). The formal Greek sense is the second meaning (Joseph A. Fiztmyer [b. 1920] 1985:1031; Epictetus [55-135] 1.3.7-8; Plutarch [45-120], Life of Solon 30.2 [95]), although either of the first two senses or a combination of them is possible, depending on how the context fills out the metaphor (T.W. Manson [1883-1958] 1949:276 and I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] 1978:571 mention the first two, while John A. Darr [b. 1953] 1992:140-46 sees the third as primary and the second as possible). Considering how the Synoptics portray the way Herod removed the Baptist [Luke 9:7-9], the meaning of deceiver or destroyer is possible. Luke’s emphasis seems to be destructiveness, since Herod murdered “the greatest born of woman” (Luke 7:28) and later stands opposed to Jesus (Acts 4:26-28). In Luke 13 the issue is willingness to kill Jesus [Luke 13:31]. (Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 1247)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) encapsulates:

Randall Buth [b. 1950] claims that the metaphor fits the rabbinic use of fox and challenges Herod’s inability to carry out his threat and attacks his pedigree and morality. He offers the following possible translations to convey the intent of the original: “Weakling, small fry, usurper, poser, clown, insignificant person, cream puff, nobody, weasel, jackass, tin soldier, peon, hick, pompous pretender, jerk, upstart.” In an article titled “Kings Are Lions, but Herod Is a Fox,” Eric A. Hermanson [b. 1940] argues that Jesus is saying that Herod is no lion but a jackass. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 559)

Thus it is possible that Jesus is putting Herod in his place: I am a lion, you are a fox; I am David, you are Saul; or in the words of Rush Hour (1998): “I’m Michael Jackson [1958-2009], You Tito!”

Some scholars have analyzed the epithet through the lens of physiognomy, the practice of analysis through physical characteristics. Chad Hartsock (b. 1977) deduces:

That Luke knows the conventions of physiognomics is clear, as he uses examples from all three categories of physiognomics—zoological, racial/ethnographical, and bodily features. In zoological terms, two examples will suffice. In Luke 3:7, John the Baptist refers to the crowds as a “brood of vipers,” and the meaning here is self-evidently negative and insulting...A second example is Luke 13:32, where Jesus is warned that Herod is out to get him. Jesus answers, “Go and tell that fox...” (Luke 13:32). Polemo [90-144]’s characterization of the fox is primarily that of being cunning and deceptive. Certainly Herod rules in such a matter, and the physiognomic convention is very much at work in this text to add a layer of meaning that is often unnoticed. (Hartsock, Sight and Blindness in Luke-Acts: The Use of Physical Features in Characterization, 167-68)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) probes:

Pseudo-Aristotle remarks rather briefly that, in contrast to lions who are “brave,” foxes, because they are “reddish,” are of “bad character” (πανουργοι; 812a17), a comment that echoes Aristotle [384-322 BCE]’s point that the fox is cunning and of evil disposition (History of Animals 1.1.488b20). Polemo [90-144] is more expansive: “The fox is wily, deceitful, coy, evasive, rapacious, shrewd” (174). What they lack in physical strength, foxes make up for with cunning and deceit. (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 69)

Some physiognomy studies juxtapose the fox with the lion. Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) discusses:

It is not necessary to introduce the lion/fox contrast as the primary context of Jesus’ saying, as some do, in order to understand how the imagery would have impacted the reader familiar with cultural symbolism of foxes echoed in the zoological method of physiognomy. To be sure, as John A. Darr [b. 1953] has demonstrated, the primary image of “Herod the Fox” must be seen within the developing characterization of Herod in the Lukan narrative, from Luke 3-Acts 13. Darr rightly suggests that it is Herod’s foxlike trait of destructiveness that is most likely in the mind of the Lukan audience, a metaphor that is continued in Jesus’ next statement about Jerusalem: “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing” (Luke 13:34b). Darr concludes, “The image is that of the hen defending her chicks against attack by a predator. Although the predator is not specified, the reader very likely understands it to be a fox, for the fox was known as a common predator of chickens and the animal imagery lay close at hand in the passage.” This conclusion, however, should not exclude the metaphor from having a “surplus” of meaning, some of which is provided by the zoological method of the physiognomists. Thus the negative portrayal of Herod is reinforced by an appeal to the physiognomic repertoire that would have held foxes as essentially destructive creatures whose only virtue—cleverness—was self-serving. (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 71)

Whatever nuance(s) Jesus is attempting to convey, there is little doubt that he uses the term “fox” pejoratively and that the appellation would have been interpreted as such. As has been alluded, this is accentuated by the immediate context in which Jesus likens himself to a motherly “hen” gathering her chicks (Luke 13:34). Herod is the proverbial fox watching the hen house.

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) determines:

Jesus responds with a message for “that fox [Luke 13:32].” This would have been heard as a term of derision. Epictetus [55-135] (Discourses I.iii.8-9) is typical when he says: “For what else is a slanderous and malicious man but a fox, or something even more rascally and degraded? Take heed, therefore, and beware that you become not one of these rascally creatures.” The negative feature that fits this context is Herod’s destructiveness. He has killed John [Luke 9:9] and now he seeks to kill Jesus. Song of Solomon 2:15 speaks of young foxes that destroy vineyards. This is Herod: a destructive rascal! (Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (Reading the New Testament), 166)

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) modernizes:

The designation may imply a person of no significance or consequence, or a person of cunning and treachery. In either case the designation is derogatory and in today’s parlance might be better rendered as “rat.” (Evans, Luke (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 216)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) bolsters:

T.W. Manson [1893-1958] says, ‘To call Herod “that fox” is as much as to say he is neither a great man nor a straight man; he has neither majesty nor honour.’ The expression is thus contemptuous. Herod is the only person Jesus is recorded as having treated with contempt. Later we read that he wanted to see Jesus perform a miracle, and that when Jesus stood before him the Master said nothing to him at all (Luke 23:8f.). When Jesus has nothing to say to a man that man’s position is hopeless. (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 249)

The epithet is fitting. Because their prey is small, foxes are solitary rather than pack hunters and Herod is a predator who preys on innocents (Matthew 2:16) and tolerates no rivals. The shoe fits.

John T. Carroll (b. 1954) comments:

The choice of the metaphor fox for Herod is apt [Luke 13:32], evocative of this powerful ruler’s destructive bent (cf. Song of Solomon 2:15). Jesus’ reply to these Pharisees reinforces the reader’s impression that the warning is realistic and thus contributes to the building of suspense as the story moves towards it conclusion—concerning the “how,” if not the “what,” of the end of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem. (Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 294)

Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom (b. 1970) supports:

Jesus calls Antipas ‘that fox (ἀλώπηξ)’ (Luke 13:32). Foxes were associated with craftiness and inferiority in both Hellenistic and rabbinic literature. Others argue that the designation ‘fox’ implies destructiveness. Craftiness and destructiveness are, however, not mutually exclusive features. On the one hand, in Luke, Antipas appears as a destructive tyrant who kills John (Luke 9:9). On the other hand, when he finally meets Jesus, he does not kill him himself but cunningly sends him back to Pilate so that the latter, yielding to the pressure from the Jews, would crucify him (Luke 23:11). (Yamazaki-Ransom, The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative, 170)

Christoph W. Stenschke (b. 1966) assesses:

Within this reference to Herod is the note that Jesus called him a fox [Luke 13:32]. Whether it conveys Herod’s weakness and insignificance (‘the mean and paltry man as opposed to the lion’) or craftiness and slyness, both meanings suggest that divine assessment of Herod is in contrast to his claims and self-confident behaviour in Luke 3:19f, 9:7-9, 23:7-12. Either a sinful character trait is directly addressed (cf. Luke 3:19f) or an equally unacceptable attitude of pride and arrogance is indirectly addressed: Herod is not what he thinks himself to be. (Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith, 132)

In calling Herod a “fox”, Jesus dismisses the king with one word (Luke 13:32). Though he follows this moniker with a message, it is unnecessary because all that would be remembered was that Jesus had the audacity to openly disparage the reigning ruler.

John Phillips (1927-2010) remarks:

Herod probably didn’t understand a word of it—except the part about his being a fox [Luke 13:32]. (Phillips, Exploring the Gospel of Luke: An Expository Commentary, 200)

Paul Borgman (b. 1940) conjectures:

Jesus responds to the warning by referring to Herod as a fox [Luke 13:32] — wily, and an example of worthless “low-life.” This brushing-aside of the secular ruler sets up the narrative focus on the real adversaries of Jesus, his own religious peers and fellow Jews. (Borgman, The Way According to Luke: Hearing the Whole Story of Luke-Acts, 206)

Jesus calls Herod as he sees him and Christ is clearly not a fan of Judea’s tetrarch. Jesus uses his biting wit to show that the “King of the Jews” (Luke 23:3, 38) does not think much of Judea’s king nor is he threatened by him.

Why do the Pharisees inform Jesus of Herod’s ambition to eliminate him (Luke 13:31)? Why does Jesus call Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32)? Which connotation of fox most applies to Herod? With what do you associate foxes? How has the connotation of the animal changed since Jesus’ time? Is Jesus’ use of the feminine form of fox an attempt to emasculate Herod? What is the modern equivalent of “that fox”? Are the Pharisees “foxes” too? If Herod is a fox, what animal is Jesus? When is it appropriate to call an opponent by an unflattering term? Have you ever been compared to an animal? To which animal would you least wish to be compared?

Herod is a bully but his threats are not hollow. This king is not a person to be trifled with. When Jesus confronts Herod he is doing the same thing that leads to John the Baptist’s imprisonment and ultimately his death (Luke 3:19-20, 9:7).

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) connects:

The use of “fox” for Herod Antipas strikes one as coherent with Jesus’ relation to John and to what Herod did to John [Luke 9:7-9]. The attitude expressed through the term did not endear the early Christians to the ruling authorities of their day, but it is quite consistent with Jesus’ attitude toward other authorities—one thinks here of the undeniable criticisms Jesus made of the Pharisees. The same criticisms may be found in rabbinic documents (e.g. Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 28a; Babylonian Talmud Yebamoth 109b; Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 1:4). It is the attitude...that betrays the authenticity of the tradition. The context, the style, and the meaning each speak more of the context of Jesus than a later rewriting of the Jesus tradition. (McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory, 134-35)

Jonathan Marshall (b. 1978) validates:

Identifying Antipas as a fox (ἀλώπηξ) [Luke 13:32] carries connotations of craftiness, destructiveness, and impotence (Epictetus [55-135], Discourses 1, 3, 7, 9; Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 61b; Song of Solomon 2:15; Ezekiel 13:4). A response to a threat made by the tetrarch is also historically plausible considering the response made by John to Antipas’s marriage to Herodias [Luke 3:19]. (Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke, 186)

In confronting the alleged death wish, Jesus demonstrates his political awareness. Despite Herod’s track record, Jesus is obviously not intimidated by the maniacal ruler.

Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) categorizes:

Jesus speaks boldly in response to Herod’s threat, calling him a “fox [Luke 13:32].” The original audience might interpret Jesus’ response in the context of a traditional “type-scene” of bold philosopher confronting tyrant, or bold prophet confronting king. (Tannehill, Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 224)

William Barclay (1907-1978) praises:

It takes a brave person to call the reigning king a fox. Bishop [Hugh] Latimer [1487-1555] was once preaching in Westminster Abbey when Henry VIII [1491-1547] himself was one of the congregation. In the pulpit he soliloquized, ‘Latimer! Latimer! Latimer! Be careful what you say. The king of England is here!’ Then he went on, ‘Latimer! Latimer! Latimer! Be careful what you say. The King of Kings is here.’ (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible), 220)

In some ways, calling Herod a “fox” fits Jesus’ counter-cultural modus operandi. L. R. Arul Sam characterizes:

Jesus opposes injustice and speaks out against oppression, advocates non-violence, affirms new roles for women, condemns the rich, and praises those who give away their possessions. He calls Herod a ‘fox’ (Luke 13:31-33) and speaks of Pilate’s violence (Luke 13:1-30. He defies the Jewish Sanhedrin (Luke 22:67-70) and repudiates Gentile rulers (Luke 22:24-27). He predicts that those who are faithful to him will incur trouble from secular authorities (Luke 21:12). (Sam, The Love Commandment of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke and Its Implication in the Indian Context, 41)

Being fearless in the face of political oppression is part of the role Jesus is called to play. Scot McKnight (b. 1953) appraises:

Prophets do not fear rulers. Jesus knows Antipas is devious, manipulative and dishonest. Regardless of what Antipas wants, Jesus declares he will continue in his redemptive, liberating work of the kingdom and it will end, as did John’s prophetic life, in death [Luke 13:32-35]. But Jesus’ death will be in the center of power, in Jerusalem. Like John’s death, Jesus’ will take place in conjunction with a festive meal [Matthew 14:6-12; Mark 6:14-29]. The politic of Jesus entails words for devious earthly kings, words that will kill Jesus. (George Kalantzis [b. 1967] and Gregory W. Lee [b. 1978], “Extra Ecclesiam Nullum Regnum: The Politics of Jesus”, Christian Political Witness, 68)

Jesus keeps Herod and God in their proper places. Bruno Dyck (b. 1961) explains:

In his act of civil disobedience Jesus refuses to consider authorities like Herod to be more significant than they are. Jesus does not ingratiate himself to unjust authorities. This is evident in Jesus calling Herod a fox [Luke 13:32], an unflattering term that suggests conventional leaders like Herod do not play a central role in kingdom of God structures and systems. Jesus does not expect Herod’s support in promoting countercultural ideas (Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries, 129)

Though the Bible does not report what the fox says in response (if anything), it is clear that Jesus is not afraid of a confrontation with the king. In the gospels, Herod is said to be afraid; Jesus is not (Matthew 14:5; Mark 6:20). Jesus never forgets that Herod’s power is minuscule in comparison to God’s. From this perspective, Herod poses no threat to Jesus. God can easily outfox “that fox”.

Herod’s threat does not deter Jesus’ mission. Does the threat that Herod poses effect Jesus in any way? Should Christians confront corrupt politicians? Given Herod’s track record, why is Jesus unafraid of him? Is Jesus’ response to Herod a template for how to respond to bullies? Should Christians be fearless in the face of the objections of the secular world? Are you afraid of anything? Should you be?

“A man who is intimate with God will never be intimidated by men.” - Leonard Ravenhill (1907-1994)

Rich Man, Poor Man (Luke 16:20)

Who was the beggar who lay at the rich man’s gate? Lazarus (Luke 16:20)

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is one of Jesus’ most intriguing illustrations (Luke 16:19-31). Appearing only in Luke’s gospel, the parable is directed at the Pharisees “who were lovers of money” (Luke 16:14). The tale depicts a rich man and a beggar who are acquainted in life and whose fortunes are reversed in the afterlife. Though the text recounts no action of either character, the beggar spends the afterlife at “Abraham’s bosom” while the rich man is relegated to Hades (Luke 16:22-23). Ultimately, the rich man asks that the beggar be sent with a message from beyond to his brothers on earth in hopes of producing their repentance (Luke 16:27-28). Being deemed futile, his request is denied (Luke 16:29-31).

The story is unique among Jesus’ parables as it is the only one to depict a scene in the afterlife. It is also the only parable in which a character is named. The poor beggar is called Lazarus (Luke 16:20).

“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. (Luke 16:19-21 NASB)

In Lazarus, Jesus paints a pathetic picture of abject poverty. Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) describes:

The picture is one of absolute degradation. A later rabbinic proverb says, “There are three whose life is no life; he who depends on the table of another, he who is ruled by his wife, and he whose body is burdened with sufferings.” Lazarus has two out of three. From society’s perspective, he has “no life” at all. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Volume 1: Matthew, Mark, Luke,136-37)

The rich man and poor man are presented as polar opposites in every way; both representing extreme cases on the affluence spectrum. Their descriptions are carefully balanced and the multiple details serve to accentuate the contrast as strongly as possible. On the surface, the rich man is in a far superior position than poor Lazarus.

Joel B. Green (b. 1956) observes:

The stage of Jesus’ parable is set by the extravagant parallelism resident in the depictions of the two main characters. The social distance between the two is continued through to the end, symbolized first by the gate, then by the “distance” (“far away,” Luke 16:23) and the “great chasm” fixed between them (Luke 16:26). The rich man is depicted in excessive, even outrageous terms, while Lazarus is numbered among society’s “expendables,” a man who had fallen prey to the ease with which, even in an advanced agrarian society, persons without secure landholdings might experience devastating downward mobility. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 605)

Bernard Brandon Scott (b. 1941) adds:

The introductions of the two men are closely parallel. The first man has his richness; the poor man has only his name, Lazarus. The introductions set in parallel rich and Lazarus...The introductory clauses are nicely balanced: the first man’s introduction ends with “rich,” and the second man’s begins with “poor.” Likewise, the first man’s introduction begins with the anonymous “man,” and the second ends with a proper name, Lazarus. Perhaps this may also indicate the purpose of naming the poor man, for the name means “he whom God helps.” The name Lazarus contrasts the two characters: one is full of possessions, and the other is empty except for a name, but the meaning of the name may well hold out a promise. (Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus,149)

Michael Card (b. 1957) summarizes:

Two individuals could not be more different. One is fabulously wealthy, dressed in his finest clothes and eating the finest food every day...The other is pitifully poor, covered with festering sores, and left abandoned at the gate. (Card, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination), 194)

Lazarus’ name is conspicuous. While it is not unheard to incorporate a proper name into a parable (Ezekiel 23:4), this marks the only time Jesus does so, not counting Abraham who appears in the same story (Luke 16:22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30).

Because of the inclusion of the proper name, it has been argued that Jesus is recounting an historical event. David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) explains:

The status of this narrative as a parable has sometimes been questioned. The objection attends to rhetorical framing of the story. Luke does not call it a parable, unusually, nor is it introduced with a comparative (“the kingdom of heaven is like unto...”); moreover this would be the only parable in which a character is given a name, Lazarus. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 202)

Though Jesus never categorizes this particular story as parabolic, presumably the descriptor from Luke 15:2 carries through chapter 16.

Klyne R. Snodgrass (b. 1944) refutes:

Preachers and certain people throughout church history sometimes have asserted that this story is not a parable but depicts reals people and the consequences of their lives. I am not aware of any modern scholar who would agree. Certainly Luke viewed this as a parable. It appears in a collection of parables, possibly stands chiastically parallel to the parable of the Rich Fool, and uses the exact same introductory words (anthrōpos tis) which Luke uses to introduce several other parables. This is without question a parable. (Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, 426)

As much of the story is a dialogue (Luke 16:24-31), it has been posed that Jesus names the beggar as a literary device for narrative convenience: the story flows better with a character named. Still, the choice of name is intentional and the question remains why this particular name is selected.

Lazarus was a common name. Géza Vermes (b. 1924) views it as a Galilean corruption, representative of Jesus’ distinctive dialect (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 53). The name has entered the English language through the word “lazar” which means “a poor and diseased person, usually with a loathsome disease; especially a leper” (Oxford English Dictionary).

Among its effects, naming the beggar Lazarus undermines the potential assumption that his unenviable earthly condition correlates to punishment for sin. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) assesses:

The rich man he is named...Λάζαρος, i.e. la‘zar, an abbreviation of ’el‘āzār, ‘He (whom) God helps’...Its significance may be that it hints at the piety of the poor man, although the general use of πτωχος in Luke (Luke 4:18, 6:20, 7:22, 21:3) already indicates that the poor are in general pious and the recipients of God’s grace (cf. Luke 14:13, 21). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 635)

Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) adds:

Jesus may have named the poor beggar intentionally as a pun in order to help his hearers understand that this poor man (“whom God has helped”) should be identified with such poor as referred to in Luke 4:18, 6:20, 7:22 and later in Luke 21:3, i.e., he was a poor believer...If Jesus intended this pun, there is still the question of whether Luke recognized the play on the name and whether Luke’s readers would have understood it. This is doubtful. Regardless, Luke did not call attention to the possible pun. Yet Luke continued the theme of reversal by giving the forgotten, poor man a name while the rich man went nameless. The plight of the poor man is...described by means of a fourfold contrast between the rich man and Lazarus...For similar contrasts and reversals, cf. Luke 1:51-53, 3:5, 6:20-26, etc. (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 423)

The name exonerates Lazarus and he becomes one of many examples of righteous poor people in Luke’s gospel. Still, it is doubtful that Luke’s Greek speaking audience would have gleaned the significance of Lazarus’ name.

The Greek name Lazarus is equivalent to the Hebrew Eliezer. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) documents:

The name had numerous religious associations for the Jews. Among those who had the name were Aaron’s son and successor as high priest (Exodus 6:23), a priest who dedicated the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12:42), a brother of the Jewish patriot Judas Maccabeus (I Maccabees 2:5), a respected martyr of the same period (II Maccabees 6:18-23), and Abraham’s chief trusted servant (Genesis 15:2). Many suggest that the latter figure is the source of the name because of Abraham’s presence in the story. (Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 1364)

As Bock notes, some have connected the character to Abraham’s loyal servant, Eliezer of Damascus (Genesis 15:2). The Septuagint even renders the name Eliezer as Lazaros (Genesis 15:2). In Jewish thought, Eliezer is an exemplar of loyalty and covenant service.

William R. Herzog II (b. 1944) relays:

J. Duncan M. Derrett (b. 1922) has proposed...that Lazarus is “none other than ‘Eliezer, Abraham’s steward,” mentioned in Genesis 15:2, who according to midrashic tradition, was sent by Abraham “to the land to observe how the ‘tenant’ [were] dealing with [their] property” and their obligation to show hospitality...Because Elizer became a well-known figure in Jewish Haggadah, the suggestion, though difficult to assess is not impossible. (Herzog, Parables As Subversive Speech: Jesus As Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 233)

Despite sharing a common name and association with Abraham, Eliezer of Damascus was hardly a beggar.

Others have connected the story to the Lazarus famously raised from the dead by Jesus (John 11:1-44). Scholars have argued that one story has influenced the other and arguments go both ways as to which anecdote influenced the other.

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) examines:

If there is a connection between the Lazarus of the Luke account and the Lazarus of John 11, what is the nature of this relationship? There are at least two possible explanations. First, it has been argued that the Johnannine account of the raising of Lazarus is in fact a fictional illustration based upon the Lukan story: Lazarus was indeed raised from the dead (as the rich man had requested) as a witness, yet even then Jesus’ opponents did not believe (as Abraham had predicted). A second explanation, and one that is preferred to the first, is that because of the rough similarity between the point of the Lukan story and the experience of Lazarus in John 11, early in the manuscript tradition a certain Christian scribe (or scribes) inserted the name Lazarus. Although this suggestion must remain speculative, since there is no early manuscript evidence of the story without the name, it provides a reasonable explanation to the...questions raised above, for it explains why a proper name has appeared and why this name was Lazarus of all names. (Evans, Matthew-Luke (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 418)

Despite the common name, Lazarus of Bethany, like Eliezer of Damascus, is a man of means, not a beggar. Also, if Luke was privy to the story of Lazarus’ resurrection and wished to reference it, it remains to be seen why he would not simply include it.

In life, Lazarus’s name, with its allusion to divine assistance, seemingly mocked him. Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) writes, “The choice of name cannot be accidental. The man’s only help is in God, rather than persons around him (Hutrgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, 111).”

The name is also an indictment against his peers; incriminating those who did not help him. The fact that the rich man is well aware of Lazarus’ identity, calling him by name, further inculpates him (Luke 16:24).

Peter Rhea Jones (b. 1937) expounds:

The name Lazarus is clearly a Jewish name. The poor man, then, was Jewish. The rich man was Jewish. Thus, there is an incident of unbrotherliness, a denial of covenantal obligations, and a deep identification by the teller of the parable with the Jewish poor. The very person whom the rich man will not aid, God helps. Thus, the name is the exegetical clue correcting the one-dimensional idea of reversal and implying Lazarus’ trust in God’s grace, though this is not the primary thrust of the parable. If the parable were teaching that the poor were automatically blessed in the afterlife, there would be no need for the specific name Lazarus. (Jones Studying the Parables of Jesus, 173-74)

Since tragically no help came during his earthly life, Lazarus’ name may anticipate the afterlife, accurately predicting his fate: God would indeed help him.

Compare and contrast the rich man and Lazarus. Out of all of the characters in all of his parables, why does Jesus name Lazarus alone? Why does no one help Lazarus? Do you help the poor in your community?

It is significant that the beggar and not the rich man is named. To remedy this disproportionate situation, the rich man is often called “Dives”, Latin for “rich man”.

Justo L. González (b. 1937) relays:

In Luke 16:19, without further introduction, Jesus begins the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Traditionally, the rich man has been called “Dives” or “Divas”. The Vulgate says, “homo quida erat dives” (which simply means that a certain man was rich), and out of this the supposed name of the man has evolved. But the parable does not give the man’s name. This is significant as one more of Luke’s many examples of the great reversal. Normally, it is important people who have a name. They have recognition. They are somebody. But in the parable the rich and apparently important man has no name, and the poor and insignificant man does. From the very beginning of the parable, Jesus is illustrating what he has just said, that “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God [Luke 16:15].” (González, Luke (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 195)

Both God and the rich man know Lazarus’ name. He is the common bond, the figure everyone in the story knows. Frederick W. Danker (1920-2012) argues that naming Lazarus indicates that he enjoys true personhood, whereas the rich man, despite his worldly riches, lacks genuine identity (Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, 283).

David E. Garland (b. 1947) comments:

The name...gives Lazarus a measure of personhood. The rich man has no identity except as a rich man...Jesus may have chosen this name to hint at the contrast between the self-sufficient rich man, who helps himself (and helps himself too much), and the utterly dependent Lazarus, whom no one helps except God and whose angels whisk him away to a blessed afterlife. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 669)

The world does not traditionally concern itself with the names of the poor. History may not have acknowledged the poor beggar, but God did. On the surface, the rich man has it all while Lazarus is of little importance. Yet, Lazarus is significant to God. As are we all.

Does calling the rich man “Dives” detract from Jesus’ intent? Who is truly the rich man in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus? What would you name this parable? How do you feel when someone calls you by name? Whose names do you know? Do you know your last waitress’ name? Do you know the name of anyone who is homeless like Lazarus? Where does your sense of self worth come from? Do you truly know that you matter to God?

“Lord, when I feel that what I’m doing is insignificant and unimportant, help me to remember that everything I do is significant and important in your eyes, because you love me and you put me here, and no one else can do what I am doing in exactly the way I do it.” - Brennan Manning (b. 1934), Souvenirs of Solitude: Finding Rest in Abba’s Embrace, p. 73

Sadducees: Sad-You-Sees (Matthew 22:23)

Which Jewish group did not believe in the resurrection? Sadducees (Matthew 22:23).

The Sadducees were a powerful political/religious party during the New Testament era. Like most Jewish sects, the New Testament presents them in opposition to Jesus (Matthew 3:7, 16:1, 6, 11, 12, 22:23, 24; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1, 5:17, 23:6, 7, 8). In Matthew, the Sadducees are often grouped with the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7; 16:1, 5, 11, 12; 22:34). Accurately characterizing the Sadducees is difficult as they left no written records of their own history, organization or beliefs. All of the documents that remain concerning them were written by their competitors: the New Testament, Flavius Josephus [37-100] (Jewish Wars 2.119, 164--66; Antiquities of the Jews 13.171-73, 293-98; 18.11; 16-17; 20.199; The Life of Flavius Josephus10-11) and random rabbinic texts.

The Sadducees emerged around 150 BCE and disbanded after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. They were so bound to the status quo that the absence of a temple made them obsolete. In contrast to Matthew’s presentation, rabbinic literature (as well as Acts) depicts the Pharisees and Sadducees as bitter rivals. It is generally agreed that the name “Sadducees” (Greek: Saddoukaios) is related to the Hebrew tsadaq which means “to be righteous”. Their precise connection to the word is disputed. The most common suggestion associates the sect’s name with the personal name Zadok, either the Solomonic priest Zadok (I Kings 1:39) or another individual of that name. In any case, the doubling of the second consonant is problematic etymologically.

Interestingly, the Sadducees were more known for what they did not believe in than what they did. The New Testament defines the Sadducees by what they rejected, namely resurrection, angels and spirits (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). Likewise, when chronicling the Sadducees’ beliefs, Josephus also discusses more what they disavowed than what they accepted. According to Josephus, the Sadducees renounced fate, the concept that God commits evil (all evil emerges from humanity’s free will), the immortality of the soul, an afterlife, and postmortem rewards or penalties.

The Sadducees also rejected resurrection. In the New Testament era, resurrection was a divisive issues amongst Jewish factions. When on trial before the Sanhedrin, Paul invoked the topic to divide his accusers amongst themselves (Acts 23:6). Though the Sadducees appear infrequently in the New Testament, the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection is explicitly stated four times (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). The Sadducees’ most prominent appearance in the Bible comes when they challenge Jesus with a hypothetical scenario involving one bride for seven brothers (Matthew 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38). In an effort to make resurrection seem ridiculous, they ask Jesus about a widow who married seven brothers sequentially. The fact that the New Testament writers would focus on this aspect of the Sadducees is not surprising as resurrection is obviously foundational to Christian thought. A classic corny preacher joke asks “Why were they called ‘Sadducees’? Because they didn’t believe in the resurrection so they were ‘sad-you-see’”.

Josephus confirms the Sadducees’ denial of the soul, eternal rewards, and the world to come (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews , 18.1.4 [16]; Jewish Wars , 2.8.14 [165]). The Sadducees appear to have denied the supernatural entirely and kept their focus on this world

Do you know any organizations who are defined more by what they are not than what they are? The Sadducees were debating the resurrection before Jesus was raised. When and why does the concept of resurrection register on the theological radar? Why did the Sadducees reject resurrection?

The Sadducees actually rejected the concept of resurrection because they saw it as an affront to God’s sovereignty. John Riches (b. 1939) explains:

Rejection of belief in resurrection again indicates a traditionalist stance. Jews had long believed that so long as Israel obeyed the law then God would rule over them and reward the righteous and punish the wicked in this life. Belief in the resurrection, on the other hand, was linked to beliefs that the present age was in the grip of dark powers, so that in this life the righteous would suffer, although God would ultimately vindicate them. Those who had died would be raised so that they too could receive their due rewards. To reject belief in the resurrection and, indeed, possibly also in demonic powers who controlled this world in the present age, was then also to reject the belief that this present age was radically corrupted; in fact, from the Sadducees' point of view, those who argued the contrary view may have appeared to deny the continued existence of the covenant between God and Israel. (Bruce M. Metzger [1914-2007)] and Michael D. Coogan [b. 1942], The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 272).

The Sadducees are not all that different from modern religious people. They held firm to their tradition and rejected new beliefs like resurrection.

Though the Pharisees are often remembered as Jesus’ primary rivals, Jesus advised his followers to “beware” of the teaching of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matthew 16:6,11, 12).

Who are there modern-day Sadducees? What Sadducean tendencies do you have?

“It is not the brutal skeptic who is the Sadducee, he does not destroy anybody’s shrines, it is the woman with particularly bright conceptions of their own, but who are far more concerned with the visible success of this world than with anything else. You go to them with some insurgent doubt in your mind, and they smile at you, and say, ‘Oh, don’t exercise your mind on those things, it is absurd.’ That is the Sadducee who has done more to deface in modern life what Jesus Christ began to do than all the blackguardism and drunkenness in our modern civilization. The subtle destruction of all that stands for the invisible is what is represented by the Sadducee.” - Oswald Chambers (1874-1917), “The Base Impulse”, The Highest Good,

Pharisees: Blind Leading the Blind

Who were the “blind guides”? Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:24)

Jesus is often presented in contrast to the religious leaders of his day. The Pharisees, a prominent Jewish sect, are frequently his antagonists. The New Testament presents the Pharisees as rigidly enforcing the letter of the law and Jesus living by its Spirit. As the Pharisees were in a position of leadership, Jesus referred to them unflatteringly as “blind guides” (Matthew 15:14, 23:16, 24). In the latter references, the scribes are grouped with the Pharisees.

The idiom of the blind leading the blind does not originate with Jesus, though the English expression likely comes from the King James Version’s translation of Jesus’ words. The Katha Upanishad, a Hindu text written hundreds of years before Christ, also uses the saying. It reads, “Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind.” The metaphor of the blind leading the blind has come to speak of any leader who knows no more about her mission than her charges.

The only Biblical instances where “blind guides” have a specific point of reference occur in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 15:14, 23:16, 24). In Luke, Jesus presents the term “blind guides” in the “Sermon on the Plain” but uses it in general terms (Luke 6:39). The first time Jesus uses the expression to brand his critics transpires in a private session with his disciples (Matthew 15:12-14) but the second time it appears, he makes the claim public (Matthew 23:1-32).

Jesus never uses the word “blind” in relation to someone with a physical condition, but always to describe his adversaries’ spiritual predicament. Jesus emphasizes this in a series of woes in his last discourse in Matthew (Matthew 23: 16, 17, 19, 24, 26). In John, the Pharisees ask sarcastically if Jesus considers them blind. He responds, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains (John 9:41, NASB).”

Have you ever seen a group or organization where the blind were leading the blind? What did the Pharisees not see that made Jesus label them as “blind”?

Jesus openly criticizes the religious leaders of his time. He viewed the religious experts’ role as that of a guide. Guides are not above reproach.

How do you view the role of ministers? If you had to compare a minister’s job to one thing, what would it be? Do you perceive any modern religious officials to be blind guides?

“Evangelism is one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread.” - Sri Lankan evangelist D.T. Niles (1908-1970)