What were the Jewish leaders, high priests, and elders envious of?

[missmuffet]

11 hours ago, Ogner said:

Your claim that the Jewish leaders were envious of Jesus due to His growing popularity, authority, and influence, considering it a threat, doesn’t stand up to the facts of the Gospel or the logic of the Gospel itself.
Let’s break down why there was nothing to envy.

First, the crowd never obeyed or pleased Jesus. His "popularity" is a myth. Yes, He was widely known, but not popular in the sense that worldly leaders understand it. People followed Him as long as He fed them bread, but as soon as He began speaking of spiritual matters—about the Kingdom of Heaven, the bread of life—many turned away. In the Gospel of John (6:66-67), it says: "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you also want to go away?’" Even His disciples, beyond the Twelve, abandoned Him. And before the trial, those Twelve scattered too—Peter denied Him three times, the others simply vanished. Where’s the popularity in that?

Second, the crowd, which was supposedly the basis of His influence, shouted "Crucify Him!" for nearly half a day during the trial. Then Jesus was dragged around Jerusalem—to Pilate, to Herod, and back—and not a single person stood up for Him or gathered in His defense. If He had real popularity or authority in the crowd’s eyes, someone would have acted. But no one did. The crowd hated Him, not supported Him.  

Third, Jesus posed no threat in a physical or political sense. Pilate knew this—he openly testified to Jesus’s innocence and washed his hands under pressure from the crowd. Herod saw no threat either—he laughed at Jesus and sent Him back (Luke 23:11). Neither Roman authorities nor Herod perceived Him as a rival. The only threat was to the high priests, and it was purely spiritual.  

Here’s the crux: Jesus came from a different world. He brought the Kingdom of Heaven, which is incompatible with the worldly, pseudo-religious order of the high priests. They didn’t envy His popularity or influence—what was there to envy when the crowd rejected Him? They didn’t even envy the Kingdom of Heaven—they hated it. They didn’t want to live in it or accept it. Their goal was to destroy Jesus and, with Him, the Kingdom of Heaven itself, to prevent it from coming and dismantling their control over people’s minds. This wasn’t envy of something He had; it was a war between two worlds: the spiritual versus the worldly. Call it what you will, but it doesn’t remotely resemble envy.
 

What I stated is what the Holy Bible teaches.

[Ogner]

12 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Yes it does.

The Gospel narratives have these words:

Mat 27:17-18  Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?"  (18)  For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.
Mar 15:9-10  But Pilate answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?"  (10)  For he knew that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy.

God's Word teaches about something Pilate KNEW, not something he supposed, or conjectured. He KNEW that the chief priests envied Jesus.

Those who persist in contradicting the Bible find themselves on a slippery slope.
 

Your comment assumes that the word "envy" in English translations of the Gospel is the only correct and final meaning, and that Pilate "knew" the chief priests were envious of Jesus as an indisputable fact. But let’s examine why this approach is overly simplistic and overlooks both the original text and its context.

The Gospel wasn’t written in English. What you’re quoting from Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10—"handed Him over because of envy"—is already a translation from Greek. The original word is "φθόνος" (phthonos), and it’s not limited to just "envy." According to Greek-Russian dictionaries (e.g., Veisman) and Greek-English ones (e.g., Liddell-Scott), "φθόνος" has two primary meanings: 1) envy (desiring what another possesses) and 2) hostility or ill-will (rejection due to differences or a perceived threat). You can’t just pick the first option—"envy"—and claim it’s the only right one because it’s listed first. Translation depends on context, not on what’s convenient or familiar.

Pilate "knew" the chief priests handed Jesus over "because of φθόνος"—that’s a fact. But what exactly did he know? Were they envious of Jesus’s popularity, as you suggest? The context of the Gospel doesn’t support this. The crowd wasn’t loyal to Jesus—they shouted "Crucify Him!" (Matt. 27:22-23), His disciples abandoned Him (John 6:66-67), and before the trial, even the Twelve fled (Matt. 26:56). Jesus wasn’t popular in a worldly sense, and His influence didn’t threaten the priests’ authority in a way that would spark "envy" of His success. If they were envious, what were they envious of? The crowd rejected Him, and neither the Romans nor Herod saw Him as a threat (Luke 23:11, Matt. 27:24).

It’s far more logical that "φθόνος" here means hostility and hatred, not envy. Jesus posed a spiritual threat to their pseudo-religious order by preaching the Kingdom of Heaven, which they rejected. They didn’t want His influence or to live in His world—they wanted to destroy Him and His message. This was a war of worlds, not envy of popularity. Pilate, being perceptive, recognized this hostility, not petty jealousy over crowds or authority.
To insist that "envy" is the only valid translation is to ignore both the lexical range of "φθόνος" and the Gospel’s context. Choosing a translation isn’t about faith in the Bible—it’s about understanding the original text. Clinging to the English rendering and dismissing other possibilities isn’t defending God’s Word; it’s stubbornly holding to one interpretation that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
 

You might think I’m a lone voice in the wilderness, the only one daring to consider different translations of the Greek word "φθόνος," and that no one else has ever thought about or noticed this possibility. It might seem like the whole world stands behind the single interpretation of "envy," while I’m some outlier, standing alone against everyone. But that’s far from the truth.

Take, for example, The Message, a translation by Eugene Peterson. In Matthew 27:18, it reads: "He knew well enough that the religious leaders had grabbed him out of sheer spite" ("He knew well enough that the religious leaders had seized Him out of pure spite"), and in Mark 15:10: "He knew it was simply out of spite that the high priests had turned Jesus over to him" ("He knew the high priests had handed Jesus over simply out of spite"). Here, "φθόνος" is translated as "spite"—malice or resentment—which is closer to hostility than envy. This shows that even in modern translations, there are efforts to move beyond the standard "envy."
And it’s not just The Message. Several well-known theologians and commentators have discussed a broader meaning of "φθόνος":
John Charles Ryle ("Expository Thoughts on the Gospels," 1856–1869) called it "envy" with a shade of "bitter hostility."

William Barclay ("The Gospel of Matthew," 1956) described it as "envy tinged with resentment" and "deep-seated animosity."

Leon Morris ("The Gospel According to Matthew," 1992) noted that "φθόνος" can include "hostility."

Donald A. Hagner ("Matthew 14-28," 1995) wrote that it "likely carries a sense of resentment or ill-will."

So why might you have the impression that I’m alone against everyone? The answer is simple: the broader public rarely digs deep. Most people only know the mainstream—popular translations like the KJV or NIV, where "envy" became the norm—and don’t consider that there’s a discussion behind it. For the vast majority, everything is crystal clear: there’s one single correct opinion, cemented by tradition, and anything else is heresy or nonsense. They don’t read theological commentaries, study Greek lexicons, or analyze context. If you’re not with them, you’re against them. But that doesn’t mean other voices don’t exist. The debate over translations and interpretations of biblical events is alive and well among those willing to look beyond surface-level answers.

[Ogner]

12 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

The word envy can also denote "spite," or "ill will." 

I find this parallels with the parable (book of Luke) about the hired hands killing the son of the owner of the vineyard, not because they mistook him for someone else, but they knew he was the heir, and they spitefully killed him because of that in an attempt to have his inheritance.

"This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours."

The killing of Jesus and the parable are the same event. 

 

Well spotted—the parable and Jesus’s killing are the same event, and envy doesn’t even come close.

[Michael37]

43 minutes ago, Ogner said:

Your comment assumes that the word "envy" in English translations of the Gospel is the only correct and final meaning, and that Pilate "knew" the chief priests were envious of Jesus as an indisputable fact. But let’s examine why this approach is overly simplistic and overlooks both the original text and its context.

The Gospel wasn’t written in English. What you’re quoting from Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10—"handed Him over because of envy"—is already a translation from Greek. The original word is "φθόνος" (phthonos), and it’s not limited to just "envy." According to Greek-Russian dictionaries (e.g., Veisman) and Greek-English ones (e.g., Liddell-Scott), "φθόνος" has two primary meanings: 1) envy (desiring what another possesses) and 2) hostility or ill-will (rejection due to differences or a perceived threat). You can’t just pick the first option—"envy"—and claim it’s the only right one because it’s listed first. Translation depends on context, not on what’s convenient or familiar.

Pilate "knew" the chief priests handed Jesus over "because of φθόνος"—that’s a fact. But what exactly did he know? Were they envious of Jesus’s popularity, as you suggest? The context of the Gospel doesn’t support this. The crowd wasn’t loyal to Jesus—they shouted "Crucify Him!" (Matt. 27:22-23), His disciples abandoned Him (John 6:66-67), and before the trial, even the Twelve fled (Matt. 26:56). Jesus wasn’t popular in a worldly sense, and His influence didn’t threaten the priests’ authority in a way that would spark "envy" of His success. If they were envious, what were they envious of? The crowd rejected Him, and neither the Romans nor Herod saw Him as a threat (Luke 23:11, Matt. 27:24).

It’s far more logical that "φθόνος" here means hostility and hatred, not envy. Jesus posed a spiritual threat to their pseudo-religious order by preaching the Kingdom of Heaven, which they rejected. They didn’t want His influence or to live in His world—they wanted to destroy Him and His message. This was a war of worlds, not envy of popularity. Pilate, being perceptive, recognized this hostility, not petty jealousy over crowds or authority.
To insist that "envy" is the only valid translation is to ignore both the lexical range of "φθόνος" and the Gospel’s context. Choosing a translation isn’t about faith in the Bible—it’s about understanding the original text. Clinging to the English rendering and dismissing other possibilities isn’t defending God’s Word; it’s stubbornly holding to one interpretation that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
 

You might think I’m a lone voice in the wilderness, the only one daring to consider different translations of the Greek word "φθόνος," and that no one else has ever thought about or noticed this possibility. It might seem like the whole world stands behind the single interpretation of "envy," while I’m some outlier, standing alone against everyone. But that’s far from the truth.

Take, for example, The Message, a translation by Eugene Peterson. In Matthew 27:18, it reads: "He knew well enough that the religious leaders had grabbed him out of sheer spite" ("He knew well enough that the religious leaders had seized Him out of pure spite"), and in Mark 15:10: "He knew it was simply out of spite that the high priests had turned Jesus over to him" ("He knew the high priests had handed Jesus over simply out of spite"). Here, "φθόνος" is translated as "spite"—malice or resentment—which is closer to hostility than envy. This shows that even in modern translations, there are efforts to move beyond the standard "envy."
And it’s not just The Message. Several well-known theologians and commentators have discussed a broader meaning of "φθόνος":
John Charles Ryle ("Expository Thoughts on the Gospels," 1856–1869) called it "envy" with a shade of "bitter hostility."

William Barclay ("The Gospel of Matthew," 1956) described it as "envy tinged with resentment" and "deep-seated animosity."

Leon Morris ("The Gospel According to Matthew," 1992) noted that "φθόνος" can include "hostility."

Donald A. Hagner ("Matthew 14-28," 1995) wrote that it "likely carries a sense of resentment or ill-will."

So why might you have the impression that I’m alone against everyone? The answer is simple: the broader public rarely digs deep. Most people only know the mainstream—popular translations like the KJV or NIV, where "envy" became the norm—and don’t consider that there’s a discussion behind it. For the vast majority, everything is crystal clear: there’s one single correct opinion, cemented by tradition, and anything else is heresy or nonsense. They don’t read theological commentaries, study Greek lexicons, or analyze context. If you’re not with them, you’re against them. But that doesn’t mean other voices don’t exist. The debate over translations and interpretations of biblical events is alive and well among those willing to look beyond surface-level answers.

I think the translators got it right with "envy". We will just have to disagree. 

[Ogner]

11 hours ago, In the Clouds said:

Specifically the Sanhedrin and specifically Caiaphus.  Many Jews became Christians.  They were not the envious ones.  Many gentiles became Christians, too.  But, even today many Jews think of themselves as being the only chosen of God.  They were the first chosen children of God; but, by God's grace all can be saved through Jesus Christ.

Thank you for the parallel with modern Jews. Can we really claim that modern Jews envy Christians just because of their numerical superiority? At least I've never heard anyone say: 'I hate Christians because there are too many of them.' Or for example: I hate you because you're a Christian, and there are so many Christians, there are too many of you. It's not about quantity - the reason for rejection lies in the very essence of Christian teaching, not in the number of its followers.

In the same way, the high priests saw the problem not in the potential growth of Christians, but in the teaching of Jesus Christ - in that He declared Himself to be the Messiah. Remember, even before the crucifixion the crowd tried to stone Jesus because ' you, a mere man, claim to be God.”' (John 10:33), not because of any envy."

[Ogner]

6 hours ago, missmuffet said:

What I stated is what the Holy Bible teaches.

I don't want to rehash this - my detailed response is here: The Gospel wasn’t written in English

Ask me an original question, and I'll give you an original answer.

[In the Clouds]

The title of the thread is a leading question.  Perhaps both envy and hostility apply here.  

[Ogner]

3 hours ago, Michael37 said:

I think the translators got it right with "envy". We will just have to disagree. 

I value your opinion, but I’d love to hear some arguments beyond just opinion.

[Ogner]

48 minutes ago, In the Clouds said:

The title of the thread is a leading question.  Perhaps both envy and hostility apply here.  

You’re right, the title’s leading, and blending "envy" with "hostility" feels like a handy compromise—something for everyone. But translating "φθόνος" as both distorts the meaning—"out of envy and hostility" would confuse readers and turn the Bible into mush. Plus, what were the chief priests envying when the crowd rejected Jesus? That’s still unanswered.

[Anne2]

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

Pilate "knew" the chief priests handed Jesus over "because of φθόνος"—that’s a fact. But what exactly did he know? Were they envious of Jesus’s popularity, as you suggest? The context of the Gospel doesn’t support this. The crowd wasn’t loyal to Jesus—they shouted "Crucify Him!" (Matt. 27:22-23), His disciples abandoned Him (John 6:66-67), and before the trial, even the Twelve fled (Matt. 26:56). Jesus wasn’t popular in a worldly sense, and His influence didn’t threaten the priests’ authority in a way that would spark "envy" of His success. If they were envious, what were they envious of? The crowd rejected Him, and neither the Romans nor Herod saw Him as a threat (Luke 23:11, Matt. 27:24).

But John was. So much so they feared to openly confront him

Mr 11:32  But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.
Mr 12:12  And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.
Lu 20:19  And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
Lu 22:2  And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

Ac 5:26  Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
 

 

Jesus disciples; disciples of John's baptism had even more  More disciples than John

Jn 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2  (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Mt 21:25  The baptism of John, Lu 7:30  But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
Mt 21:32  For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Lu 7:30  But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.