תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

Jo. xviii. 33.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and Jerusalem. called Jesus,

which reason these trials were never to begin the day before the
Sabbath, or the day before a festival: neither is it probable that
the Jews, who were forbid to do any servile work on the Sab-
bath, would put a criminal to death at this holy season, in
honour of which a prisoner was wont to be released to them.
If in answer to this it is affirmed, that some prisoners were re-
served to the time of their great feasts, that the exemption might
be the more public, it is true that three or four instances of
this kind are recorded; but it does not seem probable that even
these executions took place on their principal festivals, which
were as strictly observed as their Sabbaths; but on their Moed
Katon, or lesser holidays; between the first and last days of
their great feasts, which by divine appointment were kept with
the greatest solemnity.

The day on which our Lord was put to death was the first
day of the passover week, and the 15th day of the mouth. It
was unlawful for them to try him on the 14th, or to put him to
death on the 15th (Levit. xxiii. 5. 7.), and the next day was the
Sabbath: therefore the Jews must have reserved him in custody
for some days before they could have executed him according to
their own laws. But such delay would have been dangerous in
the extreme, as they feared the people might attempt a rescue.
(Luke xxii. 2. Matt. xxvi. 5.) They therefore used every argu-
ment, even to threatening, with Pilate, to procure his condem-
nation. An additional evidence in favour of this side of the
question, is given us in the words of St. John, xviii. 32. who,
when the Jews reject the offer of Pilate, saying, "It is not law-
ful for us to put any man to death," adds, that the saying of Je-
sus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying the death he
should die. If we do not consider the subject in this point of
view, the prediction of our Lord (John xii. 32, 33.), which fore-
tells the manner of his death, ceases to be a prophecy, for if the
Jews no longer retained the power of inflicting capital punish-
ments, there could not be much difficulty in specifying the par-
ticular death of a criminal according to the Roman laws.

2. Pilate says to our Lord, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee?" which words are said expressly to declare, that Pilate was the supreme and only judge who was invested with the power of pronouncing sentence of absolution or condemnation.

Ans. It is granted, that Pilate was supreme judge under the Emperor, and Governor of Syria, in this and every other case, within the province of Judea, but this does not prove that he was the only judge; nor does it from hence follow that the Jews had not the privilege of trying and executing their own criminals.

3. Again, the Jews say to Christ, "Moses in the law commanded that such should be stoned; but how sayest thou?" It is added, “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him;" which is interpreted, if he had determined, the woman taken in adultery should be stoned, according to the Mosaic law, they designed to accuse him to the Roman Governor; because, if the Jews were prohibited from the use of their own laws, this act might have been considered as seditious: if, on the contrary, he had decided that she ought not to be stoned, they would have accused him of derogating from the law of Moses, and have thereby lessened his influence among the people.

Ans. This is taking for granted the point to be proved, with

[ocr errors][merged small]

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor Jerusalem. asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews?

out one word being said in its confirmation. It is probable the
only snare here laid, was to obtain from our Saviour something
in derogation of the law of Moses. He had so often preached
the doctrine of forgiveness to the greatest extent, (Mark v. 38.)
that the Pharisees might have hoped he would have committed
himself, by deciding against the execution of the Mosaic penal-
ties in this instance; and thereby have furnished them with mat-
ter of accusation against him, both before the Jewish magis.
trates and the people; and if necessary, before Pilate also.

Many more arguments are adduced by Biscoe in support of
his opinion. It cannot be denied, (he says,) that in the Acts of
the Apostles there is one very plain instance in the case of the
proto-martyr Stephen, of the councils sitting and hearing wit-
nesses (Acts vi. 12. to the end), and that his execution was
performed according to the law of Moses. Compare Deut. xviii.
5, 6, 7, with Acts vii. 58, 59. He is cast out of the city, and
the witnesses throw the first stone. Some even here bring
in the objection, there is no relation of any sentence pro-
nounced; but surely an historian seldom euters into the detail
of a trial, he confines himself to the most remarkable circum-
stances. Common ceremonies are omitted, as being too gene-
rally known to be mentioned. And these particulars of St.
Stephen's trial would never have been recorded, had it not
been for his noble speech, and to shew us the frame of mind of
the Apostle Paul at that time. If indeed the Jews did not pos-
sess the power of putting Stephen to death, if he should be
found guilty, for what purpose did they meet together? If they
did; the thing contended for is granted; and it is of little im-
port whether the sentence was actually passed or not.

Again, it is related that Peter and the other apostles were brought before the council, (Acts v. 27.) who, it is expressly said, "took counsel to slay them," (Acts v. 33.) and would doubtless have put their design into execution, had they not been dissuaded from it by Gamaliel. Is it probable that St. Luke, who mentions all these proceedings, should not have once intimated that they exceeded their power in so doing, if the Romans had prohibited them from exercising their own punishments? But, on the contrary, we find the High Priest and the elders asserting their authority in open court, in the presence of the Roman Governor himself, who was seated as a judge, without any reproof on his part. Tertullus declares to Felix, in the case of St. Paul, whom "we took and would have judged according to our law." (Acts xxiv. 6.) If the exercise of their law had been taken from them, what possible construction could have been put upon such a declaration, but open rebellion against the Roman states? and could any magistrate have suffered it to pass unnoticed? St. Paul himself acknowleges the power of the Jewish council, (Acts xxiii. 3.) and it is evident from the accusation that his was a capital cause. It may be further observed, in support of this opinion, that the four evangelists are unanimous that the Jews attempted to prosecute our Saviour for the capital crime of sabbath-breaking, that they might put him to death, Matt. xii. 10. Luke vi. 7. John v. 9, 10. 16.; and Mark, chap. ii. 3.says, "They watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbbath-day, that they might accuse him;" but evidently not before the Roman Governor, for it would have been difficult to have convinced him that the performance of a wonderful and beneficent action on

Jo. xviii. 34.

Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, Jerusalem. or did others tell it thee of me?

the sabbath-day was worthy of death. Who then can doubt that
our Saviour was to be prosecuted before the Jewish council,
who took counsel how they might destroy him? (Matt. xii. 14.)
and he only avoided the impending danger by removing from
thence to the sea of Galilee. (Mark iii. 7. and John vi. 1.) For
after these things Jesus would not walk in Jewry, because the
Jews sought to kill him, John vii. 1.

If the Jews had not sought to take away the life of Christ
by judicial proceedings, why should he avoid Judea, and all
places subject to their jurisdiction? Had they meditated his
destruction by a private hand, or by making interest with the
Roman Governor to execute him, he might have been as secure
from these dangers by withdrawing into some of the remoter
parts of Judea, as by removing into Galilee. But it was well
known to the people of Jerusalem that the Sanhedrim were lay-
ing in wait for him; and that he was under prosecution for
capital crimes. When he appeared at the feast of tabernacles,
they said, "Is not this him whom they seek to kill? Do the
rulers know indeed this is the very Christ ?" John vii. 25, 26, 27.
And afterwards we find several by-standers wished to apprehend
him, but did not, because his hour was not yet come. (John vii.
30.) They seem to have been restrained by some supernatural
influence. From the obvious construction of these passages,
we have reason to infer that the Jewish magistrates executed
their own laws in capital cases.

After the resurrection of Lazarus, we read the Chief Priests and Pharisees gathered a council, and determined to put our Saviour to death. (John xi. 47.53.) And a short time afterwards we are told, the Chief Priests consulted how they might put Lazarus also to death. (John xii. 10.) But what gives additional weight to this argument, is the fear of the people, so frequently expressed. Matthew (xxi. 46.) says, when the Chief Priests and Pharisees sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude; (also Matt. xxvi. 4, 5.) Mark xi. 18. also relates, the Scribes and Chief Priests sought how they might destroy him, for they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his doctrine; and again, they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people. (Mark xii. 12.) See also Luke xix. 47, 48. xx. 19. and xxii. 2. If the Jews had meditated the destruction of our Saviour by any private hand, or in any extra-judicial manner, or if they had intended to use their influence with the Governor, to prevail upon him to pronounce a sentence of condemnation, if sufficient evidence was wanting to establish his crime, why had the Chief Priests and Pharisees so much reason to fear the people? The instigators and actors in these cases might perhaps have had some reason to fear; but to suppose that the whole body of Jewish magistrates should be so affected, when the discovery was so improbable, seems wholly incredible. Who could force the assassin to acknowledge his guilt, when the magistrates of course would not? It must, therefore, be an act of the great council of the Jewish nation, and not any secret means of destruction, which is referred to, in those places of the Gospels, where this general fear is expressed; for we read, the Chief Priests, the Scribes, and the elders were afraid of the people. They were afraid to put Jesus to death, in the same manner, and for the same reason, that Herod was afraid to put John the Bap

Jo. xviii. 35.

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? thine own nation and Jerusalem. the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

tist to death," they feared the multitude." (Matt. xiv. 5.) And
this fear, finally, induced them to lay snares for him in his dis-
courses, that they might draw from him something contrary to
the Roman state, and make him obnoxious to the Roman Go-
vernor, Luke xx. 19, 20. And when our Saviour was at last
unexpectedly delivered into their hands, their precipitate and
unusual conduct shewed the greatness of their alarm. Our
Lord was seized, examined, and convicted, by the High Priest
and Sanhedrim in one night.

They would have executed him by their own laws, had it not
been the day of the passover, when "it was not lawful for
them to put any man to death:" and they feared a tumult among
the people too much, to detain him in prison till they could ex-
ercise this power. They therefore lost no time in delivering
him up to Pilate, well knowing, that by this step all responsi-
bility was taken from them: and, in case of any disturbance,
the assistance of all the military force of the province would
be called out. They accuse him to Pilate, not of blasphemy,
but sedition; who at last is so intimidated, that contrary to his
conscience, he is compelled, as Cæsar's representative and
friend, to take cognizance of the offence, and put Christ to
death, after the Roman custom; and thus our Lord's prediction
was fulfilled.

The Talmudists mention many instances, proving that the power of inflicting capital punishments was retained by the Jews: the Gemara expressly asserts that the four capital punishments inflicted by the Jewish council or magistracy, were in use during the forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem; though, according to the Talmudists, they were much interrupted. But even this was owing, as Josephus has shewn, to the corruption and mal-administration of the Roman Governors; who were induced by bribes, or the share of plunder, to use their influence to protect criminals from those punishments denounced against them by the Jewish laws. Even Felix himself employed robbers to murder Jonathan, the High Priest, for having reproved him for injustice; and after this time murders were not only frequent, but committed with impunity. The corrup tion of this Governor is hinted at Acts, xxiv. 26. Josephus also asserts, that Albinus dismissed all malefactors for money; and that Gessius Florus was sharer with such in their unlawful gains.

Josephus never alludes to the supposed loss of their power by the Jews; on the contrary, he observes, that the Sadducees are cruel above all the Jews in matters of judicature (b), and at that time they had been fifty years under the Roman power.

Josephus asserts also, that in cases of dispute concerning the Mosaic laws and institutions, the power of inflicting capital punishment was left to the High Priest (c).

In speaking of the Essenes, Josephus expressly affirms, that if any one speaks evil of any of their legislators, he is punished with death (d).

Such is a brief abstract of the reasoning of Mr. Biscoe on this subject, which appears satisfactorily to refute the principal arguments of Lardner on the other side of the question. I had indeed maintained the opposite and more general opinion.

Lightfoot, in his Talmudical Exercitations, after a long discussion on the question whether the Jews at this time retained the power of life and death, remarks, that it is the received

Jo. xviii. 36.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if Jerusalem. my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants

opinion, that the Romans divested the council of their autho-
rity, and took away from them the power of inflicting capital
punishments. And this argument is defended from that tradi-
tion of the Talmudists, which says,that the great council removed
from the room Gazith, where alone they could pass a sentence
of death, forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem; from
which it is inferred, that the power of judging in cases of life
and death could not proceed, because the lesser councils were
not permitted to sit on capital judgments, unless the great
council was in its proper place, and capable of receiving
appeals; the room Gazith being near the Divine presence, half
of it within, and half without the holy place. In answer to
this assertion it is observed, "But if this indeed be true, 1st,
What do then those words of our Saviour mean, They will deli-
ver you up to the councils? 2d, How did they put Stephen to
death? 3rd, Why was Paul so much afraid to commit himself
to the council, that he chose rather to appeal to Cæsar?"

"The Talmudists excellently well clear the matter, and the

Because כיון דחזו דנפישי לחו רוצחין ולא יכלו למידן,reason was this

they saw murderers so much increase, that they could not judge
them-they said therefore, it is fit that we should remove from
place to place, that so we may avoid the guilt of not judging
righteously in the room Gazith,' which engaged them to do so.
The number and boldness of thieves and murderers were so
great, and the authority of the council so weak, that they neither
could nor dared put them to death."

And again it is said in another Talmudical tradition, "Since
the time that homicides multiplied, the beheading the heifer
ceased, Sotah. fol. 47. I.; so in the case of adultery: and since
the time that adultery so openly advanced under the second
temple, they left off trying the adulteress by the bitter water,
&c. Maimon. in Sotah. chap. iii. So that we see the liberty of
judging in capital matters was no more taken from the Jews by
the Romans, than the beheading of the heifer, or the trial of the
suspected wife by the bitter waters was taken away from them,
which no one will affirm."

"The slothfulness of the council destroyed its own authority, the law slept while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and primitive justice was so out of countenance, that as to uncertain murders they made no search, and against certain ones they framed no judgment. The Sanhedrim, from mere inac-. tivity, or a foolish tenderness towards an Israelite, as a seed of Abraham, so far neglected to punish bloodshed, and other crimes, that wickedness grew so untractable, that the authority of the council trembled for fear of it, and dared not kill the killers. In this sense that saying must be understood, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' for it is evident, when they make this assertion, they do not deal fairly with Pilate; for their authority of judging had not been taken from them by the Romans, but lost by themselves, and despised by the people. Under these circumstances it was only exercised when there was no danger to be apprehended. They were happy enough to use it when they had the opportunity of judging, persecuting, and torturing poor men and Christians; and they would certainly have condemned our Saviour to death, had they not feared the people, and if Providence had not otherwise determined it." Lightfoot mentions many other circumstances which took place after Judea had long been subject to the Roman yoke,

« הקודםהמשך »