The Romans were not the only problem confronting the state of Israel in the first century. The society and culture was strongly divided into labeled people groups. The Bible requires some understanding of the social system that makes up our sacred Scripture.[1]  Religious faith and literature and how it was interpreted always appeared to be the focal issue when it came to the compatibility factor of these various people groups. 

Some of these people groups were strongly political. Others were directly oriented towards religious dogma and traditions. Still some were simply socialized categories of people who shared the same ideals. Yet, these people groups served the Romans well in keeping the population fractured enough that a unified effort to crush the Roman rule over them could not be accomplished.

The Romans, who had conquered the former territories of the Greek Empire often unknowingly promoted and allowed the Greek culture and obvious language to still be a dominating influence on all of their subject lands and peoples. Greek culture was influential in several ways in Palestine, perhaps most persuasively in religious worship.[2] 

This fact was evidenced by the value placed on the Temple in Jerusalem by the Jews and also by their intense adherence to the various feats and festivals within their ritual faith on an annual basis. The contrast was also evident in their relationship with the neighboring Samaritans.                    

Within the Jewish population in Palestine there was a constant friction between the Samaritan population nestled between Galilee and Judea in the hill country. Galilee in the time of Jesus was first and foremost Jewish in population and in its political and administrative form.[3] The devout Jews considered the Samaritans to be half-breeds and religiously illegitimate because of their political views and their improper manner of worship apart from the Temple in Jerusalem.

Most Jews were taught from the cradle to hate the Samaritans. This was demonstrated into a value system that declared that if a Jew married a Samaritan, it was considered the equivalency of bestiality. Samaritans were just as venomous in responses and critiques in other such social matters between them.

The fact that Jesus would pass through Samaria and stop at Jacob’s well (John 4:4-30) and even speak to a woman of Samaria was a huge cultural barrier to leap. Jesus and His apostles should not even have traveled through Samaria to get to Galilee. It was very common for devout Jews to go out of their way and cross over the Jordan River to the east bank when traveling north or south between Galilee and Judea. The shorter way of traveling through Samaria was not an acceptable route to most Jews.  

The Lord’s parable of the “good” Samaritan (Luke 10:30-36) was nothing shy of blasphemy and heretical to most of the ears of not only His disciples and followers, but also those who critiqued Him. There simply could be no such thing as a “good” Samaritan. For Jesus to make the “good” Samaritan out to be the hero of the story, made Him look ridiculous in many of their perceptions. There was no such thing as a “good” Samaritan in the mentality of any respectable Jew of the first century.  

Within their own Jewish ranks, there were groups of divisive confrontation that worked off of special interests and emphasis driven agendas. Even though they appeared to have a common denominator in their Jewish heritage and traditions, they each ultimately struggled for power, control and any wealth that was attached thereto.  

These groups included the Pharisees who were a very pious order of teachers and practitioners of the Jewish traditions and doctrines. They thought of themselves as sort of the “religious policeman” for the first century Jewish culture. Sincere but misled, they believed that religious ritual and separation from common sinners was the way to please God.[4]

The Sadducees framed themselves out to be a group of Jewish pseudo philosophers and religious interpreters. The Pharisees and Sadducees tried to make the best of Roman rule.[5] Yet, they existed as two very separate and distinct social and religious groups. The Sadducees were often criticized for having a narrow view of the law because they considered only the five books of the Torah as authoritative.[6]   

The Essenes which were mentioned earlier, were an apocalyptic monastic order of  men living near the Dead Sea. The Hasidaeans presented themselves as an angry group that held to a very strict legalized doctrine of constant reform and ritual.

And finally, the Zealots fancied themselves as a highly militant group of what we would today probably refer to as terrorists. To be properly accepted amongst other Zealots of the first half of the first century, one would find it necessary to be able to prove that he had killed a Roman soldier or Roman ruling official. This means that more than likely one of Jesus’ chosen apostles – Simon the Zealot, was indeed a murderer. From time to time other anti Roman extremists joined them. Among these was a group known as the Assassins, who hid daggers in their clothing and murdered any whom they suspected of being on the side of Rome.[7]