Breaking a Commandment in the Old Testament

[Righteousone]

Let me ask this question to everyone.
Were the high priests guilty of breaking one of the Ten Commandments “Thou Shalt Not Commit False Witness”, when they went to Pontius Pilate and said that Jesus should be put to death for blasphemy. Was that not breaking one of God’s Ten Commandments? And why isn’t it mentioned that it is a possibility that they broke their own law to convict Jesus?
Weren’t they suppose to live by God’s Word? Which were the Ten Commandments?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Let me ask this question to everyone.
Were the high priests guilty of breaking one of the Ten Commandments “Thou Shalt Not Commit False Witness”, when they went to Pontius Pilate and said that Jesus should be put to death for blasphemy. Was that not breaking one of God’s Ten Commandments? And why isn’t it mentioned that it is a possibility that they broke their own law to convict Jesus?
Weren’t they suppose to live by God’s Word? Which were the Ten Commandments?

LOL! They certainly were breaking all kinds of commandments, Id like to see someone argue they did nothing wrong!

 

[Righteousone]

:coffeeread:

 

[Mirdath]

Obviously they were doing a good bit of politicking, but it’s not really possible to say they broke the commandment against bearing false witness. As far as they’d have known, Jesus was just another guy, and one who – if an ordinary guy – blasphemed right in front of them. They told the truth as best they knew it, even if they told it to achieve their own ends.

 

[swariffin]

LOL! They certainly were breaking all kinds of commandments, Id like to see someone argue they did nothing wrong!

The one who will argue for their favor definitely is one of them.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Obviously they were doing a good bit of politicking, but it’s not really possible to say they broke the commandment against bearing false witness. As far as they’d have known, Jesus was just another guy, and one who – if an ordinary guy – blasphemed right in front of them. They told the truth as best they knew it, even if they told it to achieve their own ends.

It was a conspiracy to murder and a murder.
Judas’ betrayal?
Remember Barabbas being set free?

The Bible is very clear they looked for an opportunity to kill Jesus.

 

[Mirdath]

It was a conspiracy to murder and a murder.
Judas’ betrayal?
Remember Barabbas being set free?

The Bible is very clear they looked for an opportunity to kill Jesus.

And they told the truth to do so. As far as they could know, he was a blasphemer: he’d claimed the godhead himself right in front of them. Sure they wanted him dead, but they were guilty of no lie in saying he had blasphemed – and that the penalty for that act was death.

It’s eminently possible to do the right thing for evil ends.

 

[Righteousone]

And they told the truth to do so. As far as they could know, he was a blasphemer: he’d claimed the godhead himself right in front of them. Sure they wanted him dead, but they were guilty of no lie in saying he had blasphemed – and that the penalty for that act was death.

It’s eminently possible to do the right thing for evil ends.

They still accused Him of Blasphemy, even tho he openly preached in the Temple. He never hid what he was preaching. Jesus was a Jew, therefore the Law was broken because it was CLEAR you do not bear False Witness.
If He was so openly Blasphemous, why wasn’t Pilate convinced otherwise??
Can someone of Jewish faith answer this question?

 

[Mirdath]

They still accused Him of Blasphemy, even tho he openly preached in the Temple. He never hid what he was preaching. Jesus was a Jew, therefore the Law was broken because it was CLEAR you do not bear False Witness.
If He was so openly Blasphemous, why wasn’t Pilate convinced otherwise??
Can someone of Jewish faith answer this question?

The incident of blasphemy is related in the Bible plain as day. Didn’t you guys have this as your Gospel reading sometime in the last couple weeks? Here, Matthew 26: 61-66:

“This man said, ‘I can destroy the temple of God and within three days rebuild it.’”
The high priest rose and addressed him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?”
But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!”

Although whether Jesus’ words constitute blasphemy is apparently a matter of some debate – some hold that one must pronounce the tetragrammaton in order to actually blaspheme – I think it only proper, or, ah, Christlike, to assume the best of people, up to and including Caiaphas. He’s already vilified quite a bit; what’s the use of heaping up more on him when he’s thoroughly buried and he could quite possibly have been correct in this instance?

And it’s not like there isn’t precedent for the whole deal: Jeremiah barely got away with his life after preaching ruination in Jeremiah 26.

 

[Righteousone]

The incident of blasphemy is related in the Bible plain as day. Didn’t you guys have this as your Gospel reading sometime in the last couple weeks? Here, Matthew 26: 61-66:

“This man said, ‘I can destroy the temple of God and within three days rebuild it.’”
The high priest rose and addressed him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?”
But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!”

Although whether Jesus’ words constitute blasphemy is apparently a matter of some debate – some hold that one must pronounce the tetragrammaton in order to actually blaspheme – I think it only proper, or, ah, Christlike, to assume the best of people, up to and including Caiaphas. He’s already vilified quite a bit; what’s the use of heaping up more on him when he’s thoroughly buried and he could quite possibly have been correct in this instance?

And it’s not like there isn’t precedent for the whole deal: Jeremiah barely got away with his life after preaching ruination in Jeremiah 26.

Thank you for your response. Although I have thought of this myself. Point being that Caiaphas was threatened by Jesus’s teachings, therefore anything Jesus said to Caiaphas on his questions, would have been considered by the high priests an admission of his guilt, so he chose NOT to answer. Pilate could not find guilt by this alone.
As far as the bible is concerned, they saw Jesus as a troublemaker, and this was a perfect time for the priests to politic.
I can’t see how a murderer was released when Jesus harmed no one.
Doesn’tmatter what Jesus said, they were gonna find Him blasphemous ANYWAY.
He was guilty before He even reached Pilate.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Let me ask this question to everyone.
Were the high priests guilty of breaking one of the Ten Commandments “Thou Shalt Not Commit False Witness”, when they went to Pontius Pilate and said that Jesus should be put to death for blasphemy. Was that not breaking one of God’s Ten Commandments? And why isn’t it mentioned that it is a possibility that they broke their own law to convict Jesus?
Weren’t they suppose to live by God’s Word? Which were the Ten Commandments?

I don’t think they did anything wrong - if anything, they behaved in a responsible & prudent manner in dealing with a problem that could, if mishandled, have had catastrophic results. Jesus was a serious threat to the status quo (which was very fragile) - so it was wise & pious, even necessary, to have Him put to death. All that makes Him special is who His followers think Him to be. And they were not among those followers.​

And that ISTM is just the point: men who are zealous for God can, because they want only to do the right thing, sometimes do what is terribly wrong. Christians know Who Jesus is - they did not. Their motives were probably mixed - but that might be said of anyone.

 

[elvisman]

I don’t think they did anything wrong - if anything, they behaved in a responsible & prudent manner in dealing with a problem that could, if mishandled, have had catastrophic results. Jesus was a serious threat to the status quo (which was very fragile) - so it was wise & pious, even necessary, to have Him put to death. All that makes Him special is who His followers think Him to be. And they were not among those followers.​

And that ISTM is just the point: men who are zealous for God can, because they want only to do the right thing, sometimes do what is terribly wrong. Christians know Who Jesus is - they did not. Their motives were probably mixed - but that might be said of anyone.

I would have to disagree with you, my friend.
In John 9, Jesus cures the blind man. The Pharissess started saying that he was a sinner for curing him on the sabbath and they argued with Jesus.
When they asked “Surely we are not also blind, are we?” - Jesus replied:
"If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains. John 9:41.

In John 8, Jesus tells them to their face that he knows they are trying to kill him.

Matt. 26:4 says, **"they consulted together to arrest Jesus by treachery and put him to death".

Matt. 26:59-60 CLEARLY says:
**"The chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order to put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. "

Luke 22:1-6 talks about their plot and agreement with Judas. It speaks of the Devil having entered Judas. YES - they ALL did wrong and they broke the 8th Commandment.

I’m also tired of people trying to make Judas into a basically nice, but confused guy. He was NEITHER. The Gospel of John talks about his stealing from the treasury, his greed and Jesus himself referring to him as a “devil” (John 6:70).

 

[Righteousone]

They even wanted to put to death people who were collecting fire wood on the Sabbath, this would be an essential to life. (the fire).

 

[Righteousone]

I don’t think they did anything wrong - if anything, they behaved in a responsible & prudent manner in dealing with a problem that could, if mishandled, have had catastrophic results. Jesus was a serious threat to the status quo (which was very fragile) - so it was wise & pious, even necessary, to have Him put to death. All that makes Him special is who His followers think Him to be. And they were not among those followers.​

And that ISTM is just the point: men who are zealous for God can, because they want only to do the right thing, sometimes do what is terribly wrong. Christians know Who Jesus is - they did not. Their motives were probably mixed - but that might be said of anyone.

You used the correct words when you said those men who were zealous for God. Jesus was a threat to them for his preachings.
In the end, it was a catastrophic result anyway.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

And they told the truth to do so. As far as they could know, he was a blasphemer: he’d claimed the godhead himself right in front of them. Sure they wanted him dead, but they were guilty of no lie in saying he had blasphemed – and that the penalty for that act was death.

It’s eminently possible to do the right thing for evil ends.

They wanted Him dead the moment He called their hypocrisy to the carpet.

 

[Valke2]

They still accused Him of Blasphemy, even tho he openly preached in the Temple. He never hid what he was preaching. Jesus was a Jew, therefore the Law was broken because it was CLEAR you do not bear False Witness.
If He was so openly Blasphemous, why wasn’t Pilate convinced otherwise??
Can someone of Jewish faith answer this question?

It wasn’t false witness. What does Jesus preaching in teh Temple have to do with anything? If Jesus blasphemied in front of witnesses, then those witnesses (assuming they were men) could testify to what they heard and they would not be breaking the commandment.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would have to disagree with you, my friend.
In John 9, Jesus cures the blind man. The Pharissess started saying that he was a sinner for curing him on the sabbath and they argued with Jesus.
When they asked “Surely we are not also blind, are we?” - Jesus replied:
"If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains. John 9:41.

In John 8, Jesus tells them to their face that he knows they are trying to kill him.

Matt. 26:4 says, ***"***they consulted together to arrest Jesus by treachery and put him to death".

**Matt. 26:59-60 **CLEARLY says:
***"***The chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order to put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.

That is no proof that the "chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin" knew the witnesses were lying - if they were: people can say what is false in good faith. That passage is not “clear” at all.​

Luke 22:1-6 talks about their plot and agreement with Judas. It speaks of the Devil having entered Judas. YES - they ALL did wrong and they broke the 8th Commandment.

I’m also tired of people trying to make Judas into a basically nice, but confused guy. He was NEITHER. The Gospel of John talks about his stealing from the treasury, his greed and Jesus himself referring to him as a “devil” (John 6:70).

**Mirdath has answered better than I could. **​

• **1. The first poster asked about “the high priests” - not about the Pharisees, still less about any Jews elsewhere. The HPs were in any case Sadducees IIRC - not Pharisees. **
• **2. The gospels are not straightforward historical accounts - they are theological interpretations of certain facts. So one cannot take what they say as a straightforward recital of historical fact. **
• **3. Following on from that - theological judgements are theological: not historical; & it is possible, because the two are different, for them both to be right ; because they are looking at things under different & incommensurate aspects. One might as well say that someone cannot have black hair & bad morals - both can be true, of the same person, under differ aspects, & neither is logically related to the other. **
• **4. Therefore, theological judgements tell us nothing about historical facts. **
• **5. The devil is not an historical character, but a superhuman being. History is about humans - not about angels, or even about atoms. Least of all is it about God; historically, Jesus is a man, no more. **
• 6. Judas is of little relevance, for the question **was not about him but about the high priests. **
• **7. Interpretation of an event as having superhuman causes is also outside history - for Judas to be tempted by a superhuman being is not relevant to history either; historians are not theologians, & the Evangelists were theologians, drawing on actual events, with a view to displaying Who Christ is. **
• 8. If we had been present, I wonder what we would have thought. The high priest had a thankless task - I see no reason to change my opinions. I hope that answers your objections.

 

[Mirdath]

Thank you for your response. Although I have thought of this myself. Point being that Caiaphas was threatened by Jesus’s teachings, therefore anything Jesus said to Caiaphas on his questions, would have been considered by the high priests an admission of his guilt, so he chose NOT to answer. Pilate could not find guilt by this alone.

Sure. Except that he did answer, and in a way that could easily be construed as blasphemy – assuming the listener does not believe the speaker is, in fact, the son of God.

I can’t see how a murderer was released when Jesus harmed no one.

Barabbas, I seem to recall, wasn’t just a common cutthroat; he was a rebel against the Roman occupation. He stood for something the priests could get behind: a return to Jewish sovereignty. Jesus – did not.

He was guilty before He even reached Pilate.

No argument there. Jesus went up against people in high places, and got what a lot of people who’ve done the same did. Play with fire, get burned.
Catholic Dude:

They wanted Him dead the moment He called their hypocrisy to the carpet.

That changes nothing with regard to their veracity in affirming that he blasphemed.

 

[elvisman]

That is no proof that the “**chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin” **knew the witnesses were lying - if they were: people can say what is false in good faith. That passage is not “clear” at all.​

**Mirdath has answered better than I could. **​

• **1. The first poster asked about “the high priests” - not about the Pharisees, still less about any Jews elsewhere. The HPs were in any case Sadducees IIRC - not Pharisees. **
• **2. The gospels are not straightforward historical accounts - they are theological interpretations of certain facts. So one cannot take what they say as a straightforward recital of historical fact. **
• 3. Following on from that - theological judgements are theological: not historical; & it is possible, because the two are different, for them both to be right ; because they are looking at things under different & incommensurate aspects. One might as well say that someone cannot have black hair & bad morals - both can be true, of the same person, under differ aspects, & neither is logically related to the other.
• **4. Therefore, theological judgements tell us nothing about historical facts. **
• **5. The devil is not an historical **character, but a superhuman being. History is about humans - not about angels, or even about atoms. Least of all is it about God; historically, Jesus is a man, no more.
• 6. Judas is of little relevance, for the question **was not about him but about the high priests. **
• **7. Interpretation of an event as having superhuman causes is also outside history - for Judas to be tempted by a superhuman being is not relevant to history either; historians are not theologians, & the Evangelists were theologians, drawing on actual events, with a view to displaying Who Christ is. **
• 8. If we had been present, I wonder what we would have thought. The high priest had a thankless task - I see no reason to change my opinions. I hope that answers your objections.

Believe me - I am NOT trying to get into an argument with you, Gottle.
ALL I am saying is that the intent is EVERYTHING when it comes to sin. A perfect example is Matt. 5:28:
But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

The Scripture passage I quoted (Matt. 26:59-60) CLEARLY show their intention to bear false wintess.
The OP asked whether or nor they committs that sin. According to that passage, they INDEED broke that commandment.

To say otherwise is to rationalize what they did.
That’s all. :tiphat:

 

[Mirdath]

Believe me - I am NOT trying to get into an argument with you, Gottle.
ALL I am saying is that the intent is EVERYTHING when it comes to sin. A perfect example is Matt. 5:28:
But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

**The Scripture passage I quoted (Matt. 26:59-60) **CLEARLY show their intention to bear false wintess.
The OP asked whether or nor they committs that sin. According to that passage, they INDEED broke that commandment.

To say otherwise is to rationalize what they did.
That’s all. :tiphat:

Not so fast. Sure, they’d been after anything they could find, yeah – but in this particular instance, they got it from the horse’s mouth and used it for all it was worth.

Try a political analogy: someone’s trying to smear an opposing candidate for a fictitious liaison with a prostitute and isn’t getting anywhere, and then it turns out the candidate gets caught en flagrante with a sheep. It’s a lie to say he had an affair with a prostitute, but it’s the complete truth to say ‘this guy does sheep!’.