Attempted stoning of the adultress - the Law

[patrick457]

Lost me at stoning, beheading, burning and strangeling.

Simply put, these four methods are the Jewish ways of execution. As for Roman methods, well, the most shameful method available is being crucified.

Strangulation (i.e. hanging) is apparently the least severe method there was, followed by beheading and ‘burning’ - which is actually just having melted lead poured down your throat, if the (later) Talmud is to be believed. ‘Stoning’, which unlike mob stonings involved the victim beng pushed down from a height and then dropping a large boulder on top of him, is the worst method.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Simply put, these four methods are the Jewish ways of execution. As for Roman methods, well, the most shameful method available is being crucified.

Strangulation (i.e. hanging) is apparently the least severe method there was, followed by beheading and ‘burning’ - which is actually just having melted lead poured down your throat, if the (later) Talmud is to be believed. ‘Stoning’, which unlike mob stonings involved the victim beng pushed down from a height and then dropping a large boulder on top of him, is the worst method.

Hanging is hanging, no matter if we agree it may be the least severe (and we do not)
Beheading is what it is, no way out of that one
Burning, are you really going to go there?
Let alone the stoning

 

[jcrichton]

She was found in the act by who or whom?

The woman does not need to say anything, she has her attorney standing by.

The passage is not clear on this… so it had to be from amogst those that were in the crowd; as for the woman… Mosaic Law did not lend to much defense: on the word of two or three witnesses–but as the Samaritan woman, there’s no defense given which implies truth.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

My two cents.

There is some uncertainty as to how capital punishment worked in the time of Jesus. One camp thinks that Jews did have limited right to give out death sentences, but only did so in the traditional methods (stoning, beheading, burning, and strangulating) and mostly in religious matters; secular cases being tried under Roman law. Another (more plausible IMHO) camp meanwhile thinks that only the Roman governor had this right, citing the fact that the Romans seldom granted anyone capital power, preferring to keep it to themselves in order to avoid any abuse of authority that might occur, such as local courts in Roman-unfriendly areas turning on Roman collaborators. Hence, all cases would have to be submitted to the prefect after the responsible local officials have reviewed them and made recommendations, as in the case of Jesus. If this authority was jealously withheld from other provinces (a decree of Augustus to the proconsul of Cyrene, dated 7-6 BC, in fact specifically excludes capital power from the province of the native court), why would Judaea be an exception?

During the 1st century, the provincial ruler’s power was very considerable; it was only in the following century that authority was severely limited by the emperor himself. In these outposts of the empire, the prefect had to be able to do whatever he thought necessary for the good of Rome, and this included the power to discipline the army. The prefect’s right to sentence people to death was not only exclusive but also absolute; he could execute a citizen, and he did not have to formulate a charge that would stand up in a court at Rome.

The only undisputed occasion the Jews are allowed to put people to death is when gentiles transgressed the allotted boundaries of the Temple. The Jews were allowed to kill any non-Jew who entered the sacred inner court, even if they were a Roman citizen. But this is somewhat an exception from the rule, in line with the custom of granting provincial subjects as much freedom as possible in practicing their religion.

As for Stephen’s death, if we go by the opinion that only the prefect had the sole right of handing out death sentences, it would then be a lynching rather than an execution. His listeners just had enough and decided to put an end to him right then and there without any official sentence:

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Why would Stephen’s ‘lynching’ and this woman fly past under the radar then?

Judaea was a province ruled by a prefect (or after AD 41, a procurator), who commanded auxiliaries recruited from peregrini, local non-citizens: being an equestrian, he was not of high rank enough to command a legion; his immediate superior, the legate of Syria, meanwhile, had four legions under his belt. And even then, unlike in standard retellings of the Jesus story where Romans are barbarians who roam, loot and pillage around the countryside, all the while kicking old men and forcing people to carry their loads, in reality the prefect and the majority of his soldiers stayed in the capital of Caesarea Maritima for most of the year far away from the sight of Jews, preferring instead to let the native rulers (in this case, the high priest and his council) run daily affairs for him. These locals were the responsible officials for the area and was normally in charge of ordinary police and judicial procedures, though the prefect would have the final word. All in all, the prefect only had 3,000 troops at his disposal, which is not sufficient to handle serious trouble, thus in emergencies he would need the aid of the Syrian legate and his legions.

The Romans were totally unable to police the internal life of the provinces closely; and would not have done so if they had been able. So yes, they generally cared little about whatever excesses the provincial courts had in dealing with alleged offenses as long as Roman citizens were not involved. So it’s more like a ‘yeah, I know them locals are exercising vigilante justice, but so what?’-type of situation.

…but that’s exactly my point! The Romans would not grant their subject the power of captial punishment since it could be ennacted against a Roman citizen without the recourse to appeal to Roman authority; regardless of this limitation, religious zelots did in fact condemned people to death… since, for the most part, the condemned would be executed on religious grounds, I doubt that the Romans would employ much effort on investigating such deaths (if there would be any evidence left); St. Paul (which was the same man guarding the clothes of those who stoned Stephen to death), when he deemed it necessary appealed to the authority under Roman rule (no Roman citizen can be put to death by its suburdinate state/agency); as soon as St. Paul revealed his citizenship (which at that time came from birth or wealth) the crowd and the authority figures moderated their behavior… I doubt that a Jew that was not a Roman citizen would have benefited from Roman rule, even in the case of public execution… :juggle:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wildgraywolf]

If the Law of Moses said that adultrerers should be stoned, why did Jesus stop this from happening if he came to fulfill the Law?

Well, this was an obvious “set-up” question, however, Jesus didn’t stop them he put forward a precondition instead: “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. The woman’s accusers were smart enough to realize that none of them was without sin.

I’ve always wondered what happened to the man.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

John 18:31-32

Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”

I have been told that Stephen was stoned at a time of change in Roman authorities; so law enforcement was somewhat lax. Note also that Stephen seems to have been stoned by a mob, not by Jewish authorities.

 

[jcrichton]

John 18:31-32

I have been told that Stephen was stoned at a time of change in Roman authorities; so law enforcement was somewhat lax. Note also that Stephen seems to have been stoned by a mob, not by Jewish authorities.

…if you recall the Temple was razed around AD 70… so I doubt that in the ensuing years (after Christ’s Resurrection) the Roman occupation would have laxed to the point of allowing self-governance (other than the religious autonomy); which brings us back to the killing of Jesus vs. the woman and Stephen–the latter two were not officially sanctioned killings (still there was no fear of the Roman empire) while in Jesus’ case there was an orchestrated effort to have Him killed under the guise of state/capital death since His “official” death would be easier to explain away in order to not suffer retaliation from the people that held Jesus as a Prophet, Rabbi or the Messiah!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

John 18:31-32

I have been told that Stephen was stoned at a time of change in Roman authorities; so law enforcement was somewhat lax.

That was James ‘brother of the Lord’ in the 60s. Apparently the high priest at the time (Ananus son of Ananus aka Annas) took advantage of the intervening period between the death of the procurator Porcius Festus and the arrival of Lucceius Albinus in AD 62, when there were no Roman officials who could curtail his right to impose capital punishments. In any case, Ananus’ actions proved controversial among the people, and massive complaints led to him being deposed from his position upon the arrival of Albinus.

Note also that Stephen seems to have been stoned by a mob, not by Jewish authorities.

Correct. Now there have been writers who postulate things such as the passage describing the actual sentence being accidentally deleted, but that interpretation’s somewhat forced.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

That was James ‘brother of the Lord’ in the 60s. Apparently the high priest at the time (Ananus son of Ananus aka Annas) took advantage of the intervening period between the death of the procurator Porcius Festus and the arrival of Lucceius Albinus in AD 62, when there were no Roman officials who could curtail his right to impose capital punishments. In any case, Ananus’ actions proved controversial among the people, and massive complaints led to him being deposed from his position upon the arrival of Albinus.

Correct. Now there have been writers who postulate things such as the passage describing the actual sentence being accidentally deleted, but that interpretation’s somewhat forced.

Thanks for the correction and additional information. - Joe K.

 

[patrick457]

…if you recall the Temple was razed around AD 70… so I doubt that in the ensuing years (after Christ’s Resurrection) the Roman occupation would have laxed to the point of allowing self-governance (other than the religious autonomy); which brings us back to the killing of Jesus vs. the woman and Stephen–the latter two were not officially sanctioned killings (still there was no fear of the Roman empire) while in Jesus’ case there was an orchestrated effort to have Him killed under the guise of state/capital death since His “official” death would be easier to explain away in order to not suffer retaliation from the people that held Jesus as a Prophet, Rabbi or the Messiah!

Maran atha!

Angel

If I could add: unlike in the years leading up to the Jewish-Roman War, Judaea in the 20s and 30s AD was still relatively ‘peaceful’ in that there were no major widespread rebellions or some such occurring. Still, the possibility that something of the sort COULD occur was ever present, and so the authorities kept close watch. As I’ve mentioned, while the prefect was in the capital of Roman Judaea, Caesarea Maritima, for most of the year, content to let natives run their own affairs, he temporarily stayed in Jerusalem during festival seasons to ensure that no threats to the peace would erupt. Feasts like Passover meant that the overall population of the city would double, what with pilgrims from all over the known world arriving.

The Romans are quite hard when it comes to cracking down on prophets and messiahs promising signs of deliverance. About a decade after Jesus, a man named Theudas led his followers into the desert, promising to be able to part the waters of the Jordan by his command (evoking of course Moses and Joshua). Then procurator Cuspius Fadus of course was not happy and so sent a troop of armed cavalry to crush the movement. The soldiers went back to Jerusalem with Theudas’ head. A little later (during the governorship of Marcus Felix in 52-58), an ‘Egyptian’ gathered his own followers on the Mount of Olives, this time claiming that the walls of Jerusalem would crumble (again taking a page from Joshua). Felix also sent soldiers to stop the uprising: only the Egyptian managed to escape, never to be heard of again.

For a more closer example, there was that incident with Pilate and a Samaritan prophet, which caused the end of Pilate’s career as prefect.

 

[jcrichton]

If I could add: unlike in the years leading up to the Jewish-Roman War, Judaea in the 20s and 30s AD was still relatively ‘peaceful’ in that there were no major widespread rebellions or some such occurring. Still, the possibility that something of the sort COULD occur was ever present, and so the authorities kept close watch. As I’ve mentioned, while the prefect was in the capital of Roman Judaea, Caesarea Maritima, for most of the year, content to let natives run their own affairs, he temporarily stayed in Jerusalem during festival seasons to ensure that no threats to the peace would erupt. Feasts like Passover meant that the overall population of the city would double, what with pilgrims from all over the known world arriving.

The Romans are quite hard when it comes to cracking down on prophets and messiahs promising signs of deliverance. About a decade after Jesus, a man named Theudas led his followers into the desert, promising to be able to part the waters of the Jordan by his command (evoking of course Moses and Joshua). Then procurator Cuspius Fadus of course was not happy and so sent a troop of armed cavalry to crush the movement. The soldiers went back to Jerusalem with Theudas’ head. A little later (during the governorship of Marcus Felix in 52-58), an ‘Egyptian’ gathered his own followers on the Mount of Olives, this time claiming that the walls of Jerusalem would crumble (again taking a page from Joshua). Felix also sent soldiers to stop the uprising: only the Egyptian managed to escape, never to be heard of again.

For a more closer example, there was that incident with Pilate and a Samaritan prophet, which caused the end of Pilate’s career as prefect.

I am curious to know… where these leaders preaching peace and love as Jesus did?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

I am curious to know… where these leaders preaching peace and love as Jesus did?

Maran atha!

Angel

That’s it. We don’t know anything else about Theudas, the Egyptian, and the Samaritan other than what the Jewish historian Josephus tells us. Even then, he clearly had a bias against them:

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

 

[patrick457]

But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain. …]

…] Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government. …]

…] And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more.

…] So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

The authorities clearly understood that Jesus was not leading an armed rebellion, otherwise the disciples would have been arrested too, or as we can see from the above examples, worse. They however thought that He had the potential to stir up the populace (I mean, preaching about the Kingdom of God within the Empire of Caesar? Staging a ‘public demonstration’ in Jerusalem upon entry?) so they ‘nipped the bud’ before it escalated.

 

[jcrichton]

That’s it. We don’t know anything else about Theudas, the Egyptian, and the Samaritan other than what the Jewish historian Josephus tells us. Even then, he clearly had a bias against them:

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, **but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act **like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was **ready to break into Jerusalem **by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

…since I am not a historian I have little to go on but what you have offered… as per my highlights we can determine that there was a very pronounced divergence from Christ’s Teachings with the cited movements: they were intent on temporal governance and were moving the people towards violent confrontations with the governing body (Rome)… no doubt, as any established power, Rome had spies among the people it is easy to conceive that Rome would commit to a preemptive strike!

…I cannot see the same attention applied to Jesus and His movement since it presented no threat against Rome–He would have been seen as an incurable pacifist whose own people (religious) sought to kill Him.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain. …]

…] Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government. …]

…] And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more.

…] So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

The authorities clearly understood that Jesus was not leading an armed rebellion, otherwise the disciples would have been arrested too, or as we can see from the above examples, worse. They however thought that He had the potential to stir up the populace (I mean, preaching about the Kingdom of God within the Empire of Caesar? Staging a ‘public demonstration’ in Jerusalem upon entry?) so they ‘nipped the bud’ before it escalated.

…still… only thughs and Temple guard came after Jesus and while the Twelve were present and accounted for only Jesus was taken–I doubt that Rome would have spared potential heads of possible insurgencies… so it goes back to internal religious matter that poses very little threat to the empire.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

…since I am not a historian I have little to go on but what you have offered… as per my highlights we can determine that there was a very pronounce divergence from Christ’s Teachings with the cited movements: they were intent on temporal governance and were moving the people towards violent confrontations with the governing body (Rome)… since no boubt, as any established power, Rome had spies among the people it is easy to conceive that Rome would commit to a preemptive strike!

Which is why I said: “The authorities clearly understood that Jesus was not leading an armed rebellion, otherwise the disciples would have been arrested too, or as we can see from the above examples, worse.” The fear that the authorities had was not because they thought Jesus was breeding a secret army, but because they thought His words could rouse the mob.

…I cannot see the same attention applied to Jesus and His movement since it presented no threat against Rome–He would have been seen as an incurable pacifist whose own people (religious) sought to kill Him.

Maran atha!

Angel

The threat that Jesus posed was not a military one, but the power of words. As I’ve mentioned, the key theme of Jesus’ teaching is the “Kingdom of God.” In a world ruled by Rome, where Caesar is supreme king, such talk is potentially subversive.

Also, the events of Holy Week could have set off the warning signals:

And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!”

And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’- But you have made it a den of robbers.”

These acts really hammered the nail on the coffin. Jesus is acting a wee bit too dangerous, even if He and His disciples did not bear arms. And He took physical action during Passover, of all times! He was not a madman and thus, knew what He was saying, therefore He was a ‘threat to the peace’. Therefore it was Caiaphas’ (the high priest, and thus the responsible official for Jerusalem) responsibility to make sure that Jesus is silenced lest things get out of hand.

 

[patrick457]

…still… only thughs and Temple guard came after Jesus and while the Twelve were present and accounted for only Jesus was taken–I doubt that Rome would have spared potential heads of possible insurgencies… so it goes back to internal religious matter that poses very little threat to the empire.

Maran atha!

Angel

Since the high priest and his council were the normal ‘responsible officials’ for Judaea in general and Jerusalem in particular, it was Caiaphas’ job to deal with any disturbance. As long as the Temple police carried out arrests and the high priest was involved in hearing cases (though again, he probably could not execute anyone and thus submitted matters to the prefect for further judgment), there was little possibility of a direct clash between Jews and Romans. To his credit, Caiaphas was apparently an efficient and able ‘collaborator’, since he served longer than any other high priest during the period of Roman rule: he seems to have done his appointed tasks well. Only when the responsible official was sloppy did Rome directly intervene.

And since Pilate was in the city I guess Caiaphas wanted to make sure that Pilate did not think that he was slacking on the job.

 

[jcrichton]

Which is why I said: “The authorities clearly understood that Jesus was not leading an armed rebellion, otherwise the disciples would have been arrested too, or as we can see from the above examples, worse.” The fear that the authorities had was not because they thought Jesus was breeding a secret army, but because they thought His words could rouse the mob.

The threat that Jesus posed was not a military one, but the power of words. As I’ve mentioned, the key theme of Jesus’ teaching is the “Kingdom of God.” In a world ruled by Rome, where Caesar is supreme king, such talk is potentially subversive.

Also, the events of Holy Week could have set off the warning signals:

And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!”

And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’- But you have made it a den of robbers.”

These acts really hammered the nail on the coffin. Jesus is acting a wee bit too dangerous, even if He and His disciples did not bear arms. And He took physical action during Passover, of all times! He was not a madman and thus, knew what He was saying, therefore He was a ‘threat to the peace’. Therefore it was Caiaphas’ (the high priest, and thus the responsible official for Jerusalem) responsibility to make sure that Jesus is silenced lest things get out of hand.

…but Rome did not move against Jesus; the only guard that did was that of the Temple (Jewish) and these have very limited autonomy (religious matters only); hence, the Jews had to bring Jesus to Pontious Pilate (who was not ignorant of Jesus’ existence) and only at the threat made that would place him (Pilate) at odds with Ceasar did he capitulate and orfer Jesus’ execution… further, had Rome though of Jesus as a threat, Pontious Pilate would have been put to death as he insisted that a placard be placed on Jesus’ Cross “King of the Jews.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Since the high priest and his council were the normal ‘responsible officials’ for Judaea in general and Jerusalem in particular, it was Caiaphas’ job to deal with any disturbance. As long as the Temple police carried out arrests and the high priest was involved in hearing cases (though again, he probably could not execute anyone and thus submitted matters to the prefect for further judgment), there was little possibility of a direct clash between Jews and Romans. To his credit, Caiaphas was apparently an efficient and able ‘collaborator’, since he served longer than any other high priest during the period of Roman rule: he seems to have done his appointed tasks well. Only when the responsible official was sloppy did Rome directly intervene.

And since Pilate was in the city I guess Caiaphas wanted to make sure that Pilate did not think that he was slacking on the job.

I concur… we can see a little bit of his mind set as he unwillingly prophesied that it was better for one man to die for the nation–this demonstrates how quickly he moves to cut down the opposition!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

…but Rome did not move against Jesus; the only guard that did was that of the Temple (Jewish) and these have very limited autonomy (religious matters only); hence, the Jews had to bring Jesus to Pontious Pilate (who was not ignorant of Jesus’ existence) and only at the threat made that would place him (Pilate) at odds with Ceasar did he capitulate and orfer Jesus’ execution… further, had Rome though of Jesus as a threat, Pontious Pilate would have been put to death as he insisted that a placard be placed on Jesus’ Cross “King of the Jews.”

Maran atha!

Angel

See what I wrote at my last post. In any case, Mark notes immediately after narrating the Temple incident: “And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching.”