Pharisees blameless?

[clmowry]

The Romans kept the right to inflict capital punishment to themselves.

Chuck

Patrick, thank you so much for your excellent historical background. I note that the Jewish authorities told Pilate that hey could not execute a man (John 18:31). I wonder at the source for that claim, unless they had abandoned Levitical law. Almost the contrary seems to be true in John 8:3-6, where some teachers and Pharisees claimed that the adulterous woman should be stoned. Of course, part of this was the blatant hypocrisy of the age.

 

[patrick457]

Patrick, thank you so much for your excellent historical background. I note that the Jewish authorities told Pilate that hey could not execute a man (John 18:31). I wonder at the source for that claim, unless they had abandoned Levitical law. Almost the contrary seems to be true in John 8:3-6, where some teachers and Pharisees claimed that the adulterous woman should be stoned. Of course, part of this was the blatant hypocrisy of the age.

It could be possible that the “scribes and Pharisees” who brought the woman to Jesus were acting in a vigilante fashion (and in any case, it’s not so much that they wanted to stone the woman but rather to test and entrap Jesus). Which would still be contrary to Jewish law, which accepted the principle that the law of the land is the final authority. At this time, the power of capital jurisdiction was reserved for leading officials, and was denied to local or even minor Roman authorities. 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.

As for St. Stephen and St. James the ‘brother of the Lord’, aka the Just (who both died by stoning), there is a possibility that Stephen was not really given the death penalty by a Jewish tribunal but instead died under the terms of lynch law. In other words, his listeners just had enough and decided to put an end to him right then and there without any official sentence: “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.” (Acts 7:56-57) James, meanwhile, was sentenced to be stoned by the Sadducean high priest Ananus, who 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 their right to sentence people to death. In any case, Ananus’ actions were widely criticized: a delegation sent by citizens upset over the perceived breach of justice met Albinus before he reached Judea, and Albinus responded with a letter informing Ananus that it was illegal to convene the Sanhedrin without Albinus’ permission and threatening to punish the priest. Ananus was deposed by Agrippa II before Albinus’ arrival. Luke also records that the council wanted to kill Peter and John (Acts 5:21-33), but no indication is given of the intended method to achieve this aim, which still makes this inconclusive.

Also, since Jesus was a rather public taxpayer (Matthew 17:24-27, Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26), clearly that is not their reason for condemning Him. I do note that some of the false accusations made were that he opposed paying taxes to Caesar, and that He “claimed” to be the Anointed - both being false, since He not only counseled the payment of those taxes, but also since He was the Anointed, not merely claiming to be Him (Luke 23:2).

BTW, Matthew 17 was referring to the Temple tax and not to Roman tolls.

Though I sometimes wonder whether Jesus’ actions with toll-collectors such as Zacchaeus and Levi (or rather, their own actions) could be used as evidence against Him: allowing publicans to abandon and quit their jobs in order to follow Him could be read as (indirectly) “opposing the taxes”.

As for Jesus’ famous remark, we have to be careful here because He is being very clever for our feeble, mortal minds. While on one sense, Jesus does seem to advise that people give Caesar what is due to him, the latter half of His reply (“give to God what is God’s”) makes it seem like He is driving into something else here. I have read of one that goes: to Caesar belongs the fruit of a day’s work (a denarius), but the rest belongs to God.

Finally, I think that for the Romans, whether Jesus was actually the Anointed or not would not have made any difference: the authorities would have still killed Him in the end, because in the minds of some at the time, the whole concept of the Messiah is so drenched with political overtones. And that was something that Rome would not have overlooked.

Clearly, Jesus walked this earth during a time of much conflict and contradiction, such as we experience today.

Amen.

 

[po18guy]

It could be possible that the “scribes and Pharisees” who brought the woman to Jesus were acting in a vigilante fashion (and in any case, it’s not so much that they wanted to stone the woman but rather to test and entrap Jesus).

It seems that much, perhaps most, of their interaction with Him was an attempt to entrap Him.

As for St. Stephen and St. James the ‘brother of the Lord’, aka the Just (who both died by stoning), there is a possibility that Stephen was not really given the death penalty by a Jewish tribunal but instead died under the terms of lynch law.

There seemed to be no time for, or mention of any formal action taken against him.

James, meanwhile, was sentenced to be stoned by the Sadducean high priest Ananus, who 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 their right to sentence people to death.

Perfect timing for the Sadducees (who held only to the Torah and who disregarded the prophets), to carry out Moses’ prescribed penalty for such a “crime”.

BTW, Matthew 17 was referring to the Temple tax and not to Roman tolls.

(adjusting my glasses)

Though I sometimes wonder whether Jesus’ actions with toll-collectors such as Zacchaeus and Levi (or rather, their own actions) could be used as evidence against Him: allowing publicans to abandon and quit their jobs in order to follow Him could be read as (indirectly) “opposing the taxes”.

This must have been in the back of their minds, as all that Jesus did was intentionally done in public. He used the very public nature of his teaching in His defense at His arrest. Back on point, many tax collectors (hated collaborators with Rome) listened to Him, and he told the Pharisees that harlots and tax collectors would enter heaven before them. Ouch! Simeon was absolutely correct in that the Baby would become a sign that was contradicted. He so upset the order of things that he was absolutely hated by nearly all. The Jewish authorities wanted, and contemplated on several occasions, how to put Jesus to death, and could make no case against Him - even with lies, and even before Pilate, who had no use for the Hebrews, except for what he could extract from them.

Finally, I think that for the Romans, whether Jesus was actually the Anointed or not would not have made any difference: the authorities would have still killed Him in the end, because in the minds of some at the time, the whole concept of the Messiah is so drenched with political overtones. And that was something that Rome would not have overlooked.

Our Lord deftly deflected that accusation by telling Pilate, with some of the few words He used, that His Kingdom was not of this world - thus, was no direct threat to either Pilate or to Rome.

Everyone tried to trip Him up, including the devil. All failed, which created only more resentment. Again, thank you for your precise, historical clarification.