Herod the Great and Depoliticization of the Second Temple

I've noticed quite a few hits on this post lately. I thought I would give some info on the post. I am a student at Memphis Theological Seminary. This is my final paper from my class "Faith & Hope in the Interbiblical Period". Quite a fun class. Enjoy. Email or comment if you have questions.

“In the first year of his reign, King Cyrus issued a decree: Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be rebuilt, the place where sacrifices are offered and burnt offerings are brought” (The New Interpreter's Study Bible, Ezra 6:3). With these words, King Cyrus of Persia set in motion a plan to return Jerusalem to its former position as a key city in ancient Palestine. With the return of thousands of Jews from exile in Babylon and the commissioning of a new temple in Jerusalem, Cyrus inaugurated the period in Jewish history known as the Second Temple period. For the next six hundred years this new temple would serve as the center of life for Palestinian Judaism and a vital institution for Jews spread all over the ancient world. The Second Temple in Jerusalem served as the cultural, religious, and even economic nucleus of Judaism from the time it was completed until its destruction by Roman forces in 70 C.E. For five of its six centuries of existence, the Temple also served as the political heart of Judea. In 63 B.C.E., the advent of Roman rule over Judea marked the beginning of the end for the Temple’s political influence. Following his installation as ‘King of the Jews,” Herod the Great began, via a series of carefully orchestrated actions, a strategy of depoliticizing the institution of the Temple.

From the moment Sheshbazzar returned to Judea with the Temple vessels removed by Nebuchadnezzar, and Zerubbabel laid the foundations of the Second Temple, the building held political power. Political characteristics of the temple were not unique to the Jerusalem Temple. The temple as a political institution was not uncommon throughout the ancient Near East. According to author Doron Mendels, in his work The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine, many societies viewed their kings “to be gods, or sons of the gods of the state, and temples were built in obedience to the wish of a god ” (107). Part of the source of that political power lay in the position of the priesthood. Mendels goes on to say, “The priesthood became very powerful in various kingdoms and temple states because of its religious and economic strength” (107). The land of Judea proved to be no different from these various kingdoms.

In dealing with Second Temple Judea, we must first attempt to answer the question of why Cyrus would allow and fund the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. Indigenous temples served as vast sources of income for imperial powers with priests serving as collaborators with the occupying forces and collecting taxes for the empire through the temple institution. The motivation was almost certainly economic which brings about many possible motivations for Cyrus. Perhaps the growing Jewish population began taxing the infrastructure of their exilic land. In this case, Cyrus would hope that rebuilding the Temple would encourage many of them to return to their homeland. Perhaps Cyrus saw the wasted potential of Judea. The rebuilt Temple would, again, prompt many Jews to return to Judea and begin farming, building, buying and selling. All of which creates income for the empire. The king likely had political reasons for allowing the Jew’s return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of their temple. In his book Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period, Lee Levine says of the Jews response to Cyrus’ decree, “The Jews, for their part, generally responded to this support by expressing confidence in the imperial government and fully cooperating with it” (4). In other words, the decision to allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem and financially support the reconstruction of their temple helped Cyrus to placate the growing Jewish population and keep the peace among their numbers.

Regardless of the reasons, Cyrus and later kings, Darius and Artaxerxes I, knew that the rebuilt Temple would serve not only as an additional source of income, but it would also provide a means for Persia to control this vital area politically. Cyrus sent Zerubbabel to act as governor of Judah around the time of the temple’s completion, and Joshua served as High Priest at this time. In the eyes of the people these two roles, one traditionally a political leader the other traditionally seen as strictly a religious role, were, in fact, equal in their leadership roles within Judea. “Zechariah dubbed Zerubbabel and Joshua the “sons of oil,” that is the anointed (and thus divinely legitimated) leaders of the community” (Nickelsburg 11). A century later, Ezra and Nehemiah journey to Judea to assume those leadership roles: Nehemiah as the governor, and Ezra, in the role of prophet or priest. The lines between the two would again blur.

Upon their arrival in Jerusalem, Nehemiah and Ezra (though their arrival was not necessarily simultaneous) were both shocked by the state of the returnees. The city was in near ruins. The men had intermarried with non-Jewish women. Nehemiah upon his second visit to Jerusalem “enacted a number of reform measures: enforcement of the payment of tithes, prohibition of violations of the Sabbath rest, and once more the dissolving of mixed marriages” (Nickelsburg 13). In other words, he enacted civic laws to enforce religious practices. Ezra then took the tie between religion and politics one step further. He gathered the people for a public reading of the Torah. According to Jon Berquist, “When the Persian envoy Ezra recited the Law of Moses in Jerusalem's public square, this ceremony renewed the ancient covenant between God and people. The reading of the law also served as a constitutive charter of the Judean temple-state” (56). Given his role in early Second Temple Jerusalem, Ezra may seem to be simply a religious figure, but that role bore significant political power as well.

Ezra is presented as the religious leader of all Jews dwelling in the satrapy Beyond the River. He was empowered by the king with wide-ranging authority to teach the laws of the Torah and enforce their observance, appoint magistrates and judges, and authorize heavy penalties including execution (Ezra 7:25-26). In addition, Ezra received gold and silver vessels, extensive provisions for Temple worship, and gold and silver from the king to finance his plans. There was also a promise of tax exemption for all those associated with Temple service (Ezra 7:12-25). Thus we might well assume that Ezra would have been able to carry out sweeping reforms at will. (Levine 21)

Judea’s religious leaders held considerable political power. “The High Priest became a pivotal figure in the province of Yehud, ruling the Temple and exerting strong influence on Jerusalem and its environs” (Levine 18). The political power of the priests in turn politicized the institution of the Temple. “The priests constituted the ruling class, both politically and religiously, and all eyes looked to the Temple – the focus of national and religious life” (Levine 42).

The political power of the High Priest and the Temple continued as rule over Palestine moved from empire to empire. When the Ptolemaic Empire assumed rule of Palestine following the death of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.E., the imperial rulers relied on the high priesthood for leadership of Judea. “While the Ptolemies set a military governor over the larger area of Phoenicia and western Syria, they did not continue the Persian practice of assigning a governor to supervise affairs in Judea” (Horsley 23). This practice continued as the Seleucid Empire wrested control of Palestine away from the Ptolemies. Upon his defeat of the Ptolemaic army, the Judeans welcomed Antiochus III as the leader of the area.

“Antiochus thus placed the temple-state in charge of Judea and the gerousia in charge of the temple-state. In Hellenistic political arrangements, the term gerousia referred to the elders or aristocracy of a city or people. Insofar as ‘the priests, the temple-scribes, and the temple-singers’ were all clearly staff working in the Temple, the gerousia must refer to the officers who headed the temple-state.” (Horsley 27)

Thus, the priesthood and the Temple maintained their standing as the political center of Judean life. During the rule of the Seleucids, the power and economic influence of the priesthood began to corrupt the Temple leaders. The office of High Priest became an office open to the highest bidder. Many of the priestly leaders began to collaborate with Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Hellenize Judea including the introduction of many Greek institutions into Jerusalem such as a gymnasium and the Temple being “renamed the temple of Olympian Zeus” (VanderKam 20).

This corruption of the priesthood and Hellenization of Jerusalem did not lessen, though, the significance of the Temple as evidenced by the revolt led by Judas Maccabeus. This uprising targeted the Temple as one of its prime targets. The main goals of the rebels “were to survive, to purify the Temple, and to free Jerusalem from the Seleucid garrison stationed in the Akra as well as from [High Priest] Menelaus and his party” (Mendels 126). In 164 B.C.E., the Maccabean revolt achieved one of those goals. They captured and purified the Temple. It would take over two decades to realize their final goal.

Following the death of Judas, his brother Jonathan assumed leadership of the Maccabean party. A few years later, Alexander Balas, a claimant to the Seleucid throne who was warring with King Demetrius I, offered Jonathan the vacated High Priesthood. “King Alexander to his brother Jonathan, greetings. We have heard about you, that you are a mighty warrior and worthy to be our friend. And so we have appointed you today to be the high priest of your nation; you are to be called the king’s friend and you are to take our side and keep friendship with us” (1 Maccabees 10:18-21). Jonathan quickly accepted the offer. Soon, Balas proved victorious over Demetrius, and he made Jonathan the civil and military governor of Judea. With that, the roles of secular leader and High Priest resided in one person. This joining of the two positions continued throughout the years of the Hasmonean dynasty.

Following Jonathan’s death, his brother, Simon, assumed the roles of governor of Judea and High Priest. Josephus tells that the people elected Simon to the office of High Priest, “But Simon, who was made high priest by the multitude, on the very first year of his high priesthood set his people free from the Macedonians” (Antiquities Book 13, Chapter 6, Part 7). It seems the people, in electing Simon as High Priest acknowledged the office’s dual roles of secular and religious leader. This action centralized and galvanized political power with the High Priest and thus with the Temple. “From the sources we learn that from then on the capital and the Temple were the heart of the Jewish nation, and the high priesthood was its highest political office.” (Mendels 135). After the rule of Simon followed by John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I further solidified the position’s power when he took the title of king.

The actions of the Hasmoneans and the Jewish citizens (in supporting them) further politicized the Temple. From the time Sheshbazzar laid the first foundations, the Temple became a political institution. Jon Berquist said, “The Temple was a civic center, providing the locus of government, fiscal administration, and imperial presence” (51). That function became more evident as the centuries passed culminating with the period of political independence enjoyed under the Hasmonean Dynasty. The temple itself came to symbolize that independence. “The Temple became the most important symbol of national political independence. The high priests were the secular rulers of the nation, without any dependence on foreign rulers” (Mendels 138). While there was limited opposition to the dual roles of secular ruler and high priest held by the Hasmonean rulers, there was no opposition to the institution of the Temple. The Temple “was and remained the main national symbol for all Jews” (Mendels 148).

In 40 B.C.E., Herod, the son of a wealthy Idumean named Antipater, journeyed to Rome to seek an appointment for his brother-in-law, the Hasmonean Aristobulus III, as King of Judea. Instead, Herod sailed back to Judea as king. After a few years of fighting Parthians and then Jews who opposed his kingship, Herod entered Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E. to begin his reign as King of Judea. Herod the Great, as he would come to be known, ruled with what could best be described as duality. He sought to be both a true Jew and a faithful servant of Caesar. “Herod the Great is like a combination of Judas Maccabeus and Antiochus Epiphanes: he elicits both admiration and abhorrence” (Helyer 362). Herod’s reign included great triumphs and even greater tragedies. He, like most rulers then and now, enjoyed a number of supporters and suffered a, likely greater, number of detractors. “For Herod’s contemporaries, assessment of the man depended upon where one stood in the complex political spectrum of the day” (Helyer 362). Herod’s reign was characterized by murder, building projects, protest, and periods of prosperity. Another distinguishing characteristic of Herod’s reign was his efforts to depoliticize the Temple of Jerusalem.

Upon his assuming the throne after laying siege to Jerusalem, Herod began his systematic depoliticization of the Temple almost immediately. In seeking to remove political power from the Temple, Herod first looked to remove power from the office of the High Priest. He did so by appointing a series of weak priests, mostly from the Diaspora. He first appointed an old friend from the Babylonian Diaspora named Hananel. Hananel came from a priestly family, but not from the line of the high priesthood. In doing so, Herod installed a high Priest he knew he could control. “One of Herod’s principal measures was to make the Temple and the high priesthood a tool of his own rule” (Horsley 116). Herod feared that a prominent High Priest would somehow diminish his own power.

Herod nearly realized this fear when he, at the urging of his Hasmonean wife Marriamne, removed Hananel as High Priest and appointed Aristobulus III to the position. Later that year at the Festival of Tabernacles Herod realized his mistake.

Aristobulus…went up to the altar, according to the law, to offer the sacrifices, and this with the ornaments of his high priesthood, and when he performed the sacred offices, he seemed to be exceedingly comely, and taller than men usually were at his age, and to exhibit in his countenance a great deal of that high family he was sprung from – a warm zeal and affection towards him appeared among the people, and the memory of his grandfather Aristobulus was fresh in their minds; and their affections got so far the mastery of them, that they could not forebear to show their inclinations to him. They at once rejoiced and were confounded, and mingled with good wishes their joyful acclimations which they made to him, till the good-will of the multitude was made too evident; and they more rashly proclaimed the happiness they had received from his family than was fit under a monarchy to have done (Josephus Ant. 15.3.3).

Herod quickly corrected his mistake. He invited the young Hasmonean to a celebration in Jericho and had him drowned in a nearby pool. Herod then reinstated Hananel to the high priesthood. Later he appointed the Egyptian Jesus the son of Phiabi to the position. In 23 B.C.E., he removed Jesus to appoint Simeon the son of Boethus in order to marry his daughter. Through his dismissive treatment of the office of High Priest, appointing weak priests from the Diaspora and replacing them at his whim, Herod showed that the position no longer held the national esteem it held previously. The High Priest as a national symbol was a thing of the past. Herod continued to do all he could to weaken the office. “[Herod] harshly dominated the high priests. He also watched the Temple Mount carefully from Antonia, a fortress he built at the beginning of his reign in Jerusalem” (Mendels 284).

Herod also robbed power from the Temple by diminishing the role of the Pharisees and other scribes. During the reign of the Hasmonean Dynasty the Pharisees saw political power come and go. By the time of Salome Alexandra, the Pharisees took control of many matters of state. Alexandra “reinstated the Pharisees to positions of power in the administration of the kingdom/temple-state” (Horsley 110). Under Herod, though, “the Pharisees and other scribes were in effect demoted, no longer having their previous influence in the operations of society” (Horsley 116). The Pharisees and other scribes did not completely disappear from society or positions of some influence as evidenced by their presence in the Gospels of the New Testament.

Another of Herod’s strategies for depoliticizing the Temple seems backhanded at best. Herod sought to weaken the political position of the Temple by emphasizing and focusing on the religious and cultic activities. Herod used the Sanhedrin, a panel of priests and scribes, to hear all civil cases between Jewish citizens. The Sanhedrin met in the Temple complex. They heard the evidence and ruled on each case using the Torah and other written traditions to decide the cases. This served a two-fold purpose. First, it let the people see the laws of their ancestors enacted and interpreted. It was a religious practice and tradition to bring these cases in front of ‘judges.’ In allowing the council to meet and decide cases, Herod allowed the citizens of Jerusalem to express their religion. Second, the Sanhedrin kept the priests and scribes content. Priests and scribes made up a large part of the vocal opposition to Herod’s rule. By allowing the Sanhedrin to meet, Herod could placate at least a select elite group of those priests and scribes.

Another of Herod’s means to focus on the religious aspects of the Temple came in his massive renovation of the Temple complex. “Herod the Great began a tremendous renovation project (c. 20-19 B.C.) that resulted in the Second Temple taking its place among the great wonders of the ancient world” (Helyer 17). This plan seems counter to his efforts to weaken the Temple, but by focusing the people’s attentions on the religious, and even the aesthetic, aspects of the institution he diverted their attentions from his endeavor to remove political power from the Temple. Herod’s motivations for renovating the Temple were likely very similar to Cyrus’ motivations for rebuilding 500 years prior. The effort would keep the people happy, to an extent. It also helped Herod to play to his Jewish citizenry. Herod sought to be viewed as a true King of the Jews. “He wanted to be seen more favorably by religious Jews both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, some of whom had no reason to like him. And indeed he may have succeeded in gaining their favor” (Mendels 286). Herod continued this theme by building monuments at various religious sites throughout Judea. He built monuments for the patriarch and matriarchs of the Jewish faith. Again, Herod enacted a plan with a twofold purpose. First, the projects focused the minds of the religious on their religion. Second, the projects attempted to make Herod seem more Jewish. One of the major complaints against Herod was his Idumean heritage. Through these projects, he hoped to prove to his detractors that he was indeed a Jewish king.

On the other hand, Herod still sought to be a faithful client-king to Caesar. This was also evident in his building projects. He built monuments, temples, and fortresses throughout Palestine that were dedicated to Caesar, Rome, and other Roman officials. These building efforts included building new political capitals at Caesarea Maritima and Sebastia. Not only did this serve Herod’s efforts to endear himself to Rome, it also continued his efforts to lessen the political power of the Temple. By establishing capital cities at these two locations, Herod robbed Jerusalem, and therefore the Temple, of even more of its political influence. “It is quite clear that the foundation of Caesarea, and in a way that of Sebastia, the former North Israelite capital of Samaria, had its impact on the centrality of Jerusalem. Suddenly Judea had two competitive capitals” (Mendels 285). Establishing two alternate capital cities in Palestine helped to decentralize political power away from Jerusalem and its Temple institution.

The question now becomes: why? Why would Herod the Great seek to decrease the political influence of the Jerusalem Temple? First and foremost, Herod did so to follow policy. “By lowering the profile of the Temple as a political center, Herod was true to his masters, the Romans, who wanted to eliminate any political power from native temples” (Mendels 285). Appointing weak, unimpressive men to the position of High Priest was also in keeping with Roman practices. “The subordination of the religious elite to the political leadership was a hallmark of Romanization” (Levine 171). Herod served his own purposes by weakening the Temple and high priesthood. In their weakness, his office found strength. In weakening the priesthood he strengthened his own political position.

Another possible motivation was Herod’s fear of the Hasmonean lineage. Early in his reign he tried to capitalize on the Jews affinity for the Hasmoneans. He married a Hasmonean descendant. Herod went so far as to claim to be of the Hasmonean line. This pretending came to a halt with the near disaster of appointing Aristobulus as High Priest. Soon after that misstep, Herod killed any remaining Hasmonean heirs including his wife, mother-in-law, and sons for fear that the people may attempt to restore them to the throne.

Let us consider also that Herod’s efforts may have been an attempt to re-politicize the Temple. As a part of the Temple renovations, Herod’s construction crews installed a Roman eagle over the great entrance gate to the Temple. The temple also saw “regular sacrifices on behalf of Rome and Caesar” (Horsley 116). The eagle and sacrifices, along with other building projects in Jerusalem (i.e. amphitheaters, theaters, hippodromes, etc) show a strong effort on Herod’s part to Romanize Jerusalem. These instances could signify an effort on Herod’s part to make the Jerusalem a center of Roman politics. They were, at least, evidence that Herod’s loyalty to Rome far out-weighed his loyalty to his Jewish citizenry.

The efforts of Herod regarding the temple resonate through the New Testament. The actions of the Pharisees and scribes toward Jesus could be seen as the latest grasp for the political power their office once held. We can interpret the High Priest Caiaphas’ actions as quite the same. Especially in light of Jesus words regarding the Temple. Jesus’ words could be seen as a final straw threat against the already weakened Temple. Herod’s treatment of the temple could also give us some insight into Jesus’ view of the Temple. What once represented God’s presence on earth had become little more than a source of income for the occupying imperial forces.

Herod the Great’s 40-year reign as King of Judea could be described as bipolar. His kingship was characterized by tragedy and triumph. Tragedies such as political murders stand adjacent to triumphs such as the renovated Temple that stood as one of the great wonders of the Roman Empire. One thing that remained constant through his time in power was a concerted effort to lessen the political power of the temple and the office of High Priest. In a modern context, we would call it “the separation of church and state.” In Second Temple Judea it was just another of Herod’s plans for seizing and retaining power over Palestine.

Works Cited

Berquist, Lon L. "Resistance and Accommodation in the Persian Empire." In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance. Ed. Richard A. Horsley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students. IVP Academic: Downers Grove, IL, 2002.

Horsley, Richard A. Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.

Josephus, Flavius. The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus: the Learned and authentic Jewish Historian and Celebrated Warrior...to which are added Seven Dissertations Concerning Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, James the Just, God's Command to Abraham, etc. Trans. William Whitson. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, n.d.

Levine, Lee I. Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002.

Mendels, Doron. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishna. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

The New Interpreter's Study Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003.

VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.