Why did the Romans and not the Jewish leaders kill Jesus?

[karaleigh]

At the time Jesus was on trial, Jerusalem with under Roman Occupation. Though the Roman did let the Jews decide on matters of importance. Jesus being a very important evangelical, His fate, by man, fell to the High Priest, at that time, in Jerusalem.

The Romans authorities were the only persons who could carry out the final execution of the Christ. King Herod, 2nd had earlier sold all the Jews to the Romans with the understanding that the kingdom of David would be forever in Herod’s family line…that request failed later in history.

Crucifiction was a Roman torture used by the Roman army in the countries they were occupying, and it was used to control to conformity to the demands of Caesar Augustus. Pontius Pilate was the Roman Officer who killed Jesus…Pilate hated Jews and relished in their blood shed. Within 33 years, and with an Augustus dialogue, 300 thousands citizens of Jerusalem were dead by the same means as Jesus Christ, in severe bloodshed! The two army personal who whipped and scorched Jesus half to death, were the leading families of military advisers to Caesar Augustus…Titus and Lucius, both of which become Caesars with successful carnage in a military campaigns for the Roman Empire.

Why did the Romans kill Jesus? With three words…Money, Bodies, and Booty! :frighten:

 

[steve53]

At the time Jesus was on trial, Jerusalem with under Roman Occupation. Though the Roman did let the Jews decide on matters of importance. Jesus being a very important evangelical, His fate, by man, fell to the High Priest, at that time, in Jerusalem.

The Romans authorities were the only persons who could carry out the final execution of the Christ. King Herod, 2nd had earlier sold all the Jews to the Romans with the understanding that the kingdom of David would be forever in Herod’s family line…that request failed later in history.

Crucifiction was a Roman torture used by the Roman army in the countries they were occupying, and it was used to control to conformity to the demands of Caesar Augustus. Pontius Pilate was the Roman Officer who killed Jesus…Pilate hated Jews and relished in their blood shed. Within 33 years, and with an Augustus dialogue, 300 thousands citizens of Jerusalem were dead by the same means as Jesus Christ, in severe bloodshed! The two army personal who whipped and scorched Jesus half to death, were the leading families of military advisers to Caesar Augustus…Titus and Lucius, both of which become Caesars with successful carnage in a military campaigns for the Roman Empire.

Why did the Romans kill Jesus? With three words…Money, Bodies, and Booty! :frighten:

Source?

 

[patrick457]

However as I reread my post I can totally see how it would be read that way.

But let me say that I think the crowd the Sanhedrin would have had most to fear would have been those caught up in the momentary expectation of Roman soldiers lying slain in the street. Such people I think would be very dangerous if the Sanhedrin had seized Him in plain view of them all.

God Bless

True. Passover was a busy season: it was a time when people from all over the world would come to Jerusalem, swelling the city’s overall population, so that’s one cause of concern for the authorities, Jewish and Roman (it was one of the few times of the year when the prefect and his auxiliaries personally come to keep things in check - as mentioned, for most of the year he and most of his troops tend to stay away from Jewish sight). The message of the feast - commemoration of a release from bondage - which could cause tensions to run high would not have been lost to them either.

Now the fact that only Jesus was arrested suggests that the authorities knew He was not leading an armed revolt, otherwise the disciples would have been rounded up as well - or worse, killed them all on the spot without bothering to carry out any arrests (as what happened to people like the Samaritan prophet, Theudas and the ‘Egyptian’ prophet afterwards). Jesus may not be a military threat now, but He is still considered a nuisance to the peace by His inflammatory words and actions: so the authorities were content to silence Him, nip the bud, so to speak, before things go further downhill.

The people were somewhat responsible for Jesus’ death, but not in the way you or I often think. It was their support for Him that eventually got Him killed - it would have, or the death sentence (crucifixion, a public spectacle designed to shame and ridicule the victim and his associates) would not make any sense. Why bother making this man’s death available for public viewing if there were no followers and sympathizers to speak of who could see him die?

 

[couponfit]

First consider that the church was made up of Jews, and more importantly up until about 400 ad there was no new testament bible. It was rather simply only the old testament.

 

[NotWorthy]

First consider that the church was made up of Jews, and more importantly up until about 400 ad there was no new testament bible. It was rather simply only the old testament.

I wouldn’t phrase it that way. The Church used roughly 90% of what we now know as the New Testament. There were various questions about some of the books, Hebrews and Revelation immediately comes to mind, as well as questions about other books that didn’t make it, Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians and The Shepherd of Hermas.

But the 4 Gospels were pretty much universally read throughout Christianity during the Liturgy in the 2nd century. Even though it wasn’t codified yet, it was rather well-formed.

 

[karaleigh]

Source?

Jerusalem with under Roman Occupation - NABRE - gospels
King Herod 2nd - NABRE - gospels
Pontius Pilate
Pontius Pilate
Augustus
Augustus

This last source is the controversial is HBO Rome the Series, because ancient Rome was deeply perverted in licentious sexual behavior, this link may need some thought if you are not in an adult situation, or you are not comfortable with that type of theatre…meaning, this series has explicit sexual content. Though it does have a historical bases, it doesn’t cover the entire history of both the Jews and the Romans during the time of Jesus’ crucifiction. uch: It also details the government of the Roman Caesar at the time of Jesus’ death.

 

[chosen_people]

The Jewish leaders could stone an adultress and also St Stephen to death. Why couldn’t they kill Jesus?

I’m pretty sure that the Jews did kill Jesus - Here St. Bridget describes exactly how they did it:
" O Jesus! Creator of heaven and earth, Whom nothing can encompass nor limit, Thou Who dost enfold and hold all under Thy loving power, remember the very bitter pain which Thou didst suffer when blow by blow and with hatred the Jews nailed Thy Sacred Hands and Feet to the Cross, with big blunt nails; and, not finding Thee in a pitiable enough state to satisfy their rage, they enlarged Thy wounds, and added pain to pain, and with indescribable cruelty stretched Thy Body on the Cross, and dislocated Thy Bones by pulling them on all sides."

need further proof:

‘The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sin always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end.’

• I Thessalonians ii.14-16

 

[bogeydogg]

I’m pretty sure that the Jews did kill Jesus - Here St. Bridget describes exactly how they did it:
" O Jesus! Creator of heaven and earth, Whom nothing can encompass nor limit, Thou Who dost enfold and hold all under Thy loving power, remember the very bitter pain which Thou didst suffer when blow by blow and with hatred the Jews nailed Thy Sacred Hands and Feet to the Cross, with big blunt nails; and, not finding Thee in a pitiable enough state to satisfy their rage, they enlarged Thy wounds, and added pain to pain, and with indescribable cruelty stretched Thy Body on the Cross, and dislocated Thy Bones by pulling them on all sides."

need further proof:

‘The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sin always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end.’

• I Thessalonians ii.14-16

What about this?

Romans 9 1 I am speaking the truth in Christ–I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

When St Paul refereed to “the Jews” he refereed either to “his brothers” meaning those who were of his flesh upon whom he greatly desired the mercies of God, and those who resisted the Gospel and tried to drag people back into the Law and away from Christ. This group by the way even included Peter once.

Paul never issues a blanket condemnation of the Jews. He does speak about a time of darkness for the Jews but that is in keeping with Isaiah and Christ.

Isaiah 6 8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” 9 And he said, "Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” 11 Then I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said: "Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste, 12 and the LORD removes people far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.

Which Christ appropriates to Himself,

Matthew 13 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and 5turn, and I would heal them.’

But Paul also says

1 Corinthians 9 19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

Romans 11 25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

And above all…

Romans 1 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Without question there have been multitudinous crimes committed by those in the church against the Jews (and Luther is no exception) but the scope of New Testament authorship is not at fault for this, rather the selective reading of racially motivated men who twisted the word of Gd to their own destruction.

God Bless

Ray

 

[steve53]

Jerusalem with under Roman Occupation - NABRE - gospels
King Herod 2nd - NABRE - gospels
Pontius Pilate
Pontius Pilate
Augustus
Augustus

This last source is the controversial is HBO Rome the Series, because ancient Rome was deeply perverted in licentious sexual behavior, this link may need some thought if you are not in an adult situation, or you are not comfortable with that type of theatre…meaning, this series has explicit sexual content. Though it does have a historical bases, it doesn’t cover the entire history of both the Jews and the Romans during the time of Jesus’ crucifiction. uch: It also details the government of the Roman Caesar at the time of Jesus’ death.

Patrick, what do you think?

 

[edwest2]

See Mark 15:14

bible.cc/mark/15-14.htm

And Mark 15:15

bible.cc/mark/15-15.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[patrick457]

Jerusalem with under Roman Occupation - NABRE - gospels
King Herod 2nd - NABRE - gospels
Pontius Pilate
Pontius Pilate
Augustus
Augustus

This last source is the controversial is HBO Rome the Series, because ancient Rome was deeply perverted in licentious sexual behavior, this link may need some thought if you are not in an adult situation, or you are not comfortable with that type of theatre…meaning, this series has explicit sexual content. Though it does have a historical bases, it doesn’t cover the entire history of both the Jews and the Romans during the time of Jesus’ crucifiction. uch: It also details the government of the Roman Caesar at the time of Jesus’ death.

Fair enough, but I would just add that the reigning Caesar at the time of Jesus’ adulthood was Tiberius (reigned AD 14-37). And, I wouldn’t put too much faith in a TV drama series - or for that matter, most if not all popular movies and shows - as a totally-reliable historical source: sure it may contain true facts to the degree that the available research will allow (this usually depends on how much the writers want to be ‘historically accurate’ when it suits them - and I think the writers of Rome would have), but the main purpose of such a program is not to be a documentary on how life was really like back then. As any good writer does, you can expect some deviations from history.

 

[karaleigh]

Fair enough, but I would just add that the reigning Caesar at the time of Jesus’ adulthood was Tiberius (reigned AD 14-37). And, I wouldn’t put too much faith in a TV drama series - or for that matter, most if not all popular movies and shows - as a totally-reliable historical source: sure it may contain true facts to the degree that the available research will allow (this usually depends on how much the writers want to be ‘historically accurate’ when it suits them - and I think the writers of Rome would have), but the main purpose of such a program is not to be a documentary on how life was really like back then. As any good writer does, you can expect some deviations from history.

Agreed about the TV series! But it does have some historical merit or the Italian government would have not let the show be film and produced in their country. As a government, in as much as, ruled by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and that “truth will set you free”, ‘deviations’ will be for the theatricals effects…my opinion.

Caesar Augustus was the person in power at the time of Jesus’ death. Tiberius, as you’ve written (reigned AD 14-37). I’m not trying to be picky about time lines, my point was that Augustus ordered, while Jesus was in his ministry, of this slaughter of the famous evangelical from Nazareth. Augustus knew Pilate’s repetition, but sent him any way…this statement should also be at one of the links above.

I’m not sure why this was passed to you, but I hope the meanings of the words has been cleared up for all to understand, as well as, my feelings concerning the death of Jesus. Plus, my position on whether it was the Roman Empire or the Jews who killed the famous messiah called The Christ. Herod pushed the issue of Jesus’ death(as did his father) by earlier selling all of Israel to Rome in part for a stake in the Kingdom of David. Herod, in the house of David, wanted his name in the historical generations, and to remain the reigning monarchy forever. Again, like his father, Herod(king of the Jews) wanted to remain the king…not Jesus! Herod, again like his father, fearing the prophecies of the coming messiah pushed to have Jesus publicly whipped and violently killed using the means of bloodshed for all to see Herod’s personal power and might over what persons then claimed as The Messiah and their future king. The biblical record recorded in 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel details how the kings stole Canaan, Israel, and the worship to the All Mighty God, that is “The Great, I AM”. :frighten:

 

[patrick457]

Agreed about the TV series! But it does have some historical merit or the Italian government would have not let the show be film and produced in their country. As a government, in as much as, ruled by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and that “truth will set you free”, ‘deviations’ will be for the theatricals effects…my opinion.

Uh, no, Italy is hardly a country “ruled by the Holy Roman Catholic Church” (as if the Church is in charge of the government) though it is historically a Catholic area and does have the Vatican City State - which is officially a separate nation from Italy - within its territory. Saying that the Italian Republic is Catholic would be kind of like saying that the United States of America today is a Protestant nation. No, both are secular countries.

 

[NotWorthy]

Agreed about the TV series! But it does have some historical merit or the Italian government would have not let the show be film and produced in their country. As a government, in as much as, ruled by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and that “truth will set you free”, ‘deviations’ will be for the theatricals effects…my opinion.

Ha! If only that were true. They allowed it to be filmed in Italy for one reason. Because it was economically beneficial to Italy.

Period.

 

[MorningSong51]

The Jewish leaders could stone an adulteress and also St Stephen to death. Why couldn’t they kill Jesus?

For starters, it was the week of Passover, so “no” trial could be held on a Jewish festival, I believe this might be the answer. Also, according to the law: No money was to be exchanged during that time or during that week,either. As to state: A Kohen is forbidden to touch anyone or anything that has been made ritually unclean through contact with the dead. ***(Then the High Priest would have been ritually unclean for not only exchanging words with Judas but giving him money. Also scripture states that it was Satan who entered into him (Judas). So I would assume that this is something “dead” and “unclean”.)

However, execution was only permitted by four methods under Torah law: stoning, burning, beheading and strangulation. These are the words used in the translation, but the Talmud explains that “burning” required that the convicted felon drink a liquid metal that would kill him immediately, and that beheading did not mean literally to remove the head, but merely severage of the windpipe and the artery to the brain, resulting in immediate death also. So being crucified, was a Roman method.

The trial (from the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin) was about “acknowledgment” of his title of being the “Messiah”. The High Priest (Caiphas or Ananus) procedures during the time of the trial would not have been considered by some as being valid. The High Priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied." Again, stoning someone and hanging are two separate punishments - Stephen acknowledged Christ as being the Messiah and the Son of God, as in 1 Chronicles 28:6, the Messiah - and as a Sonship. St Paul states this perfectly, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”

So as we both know the trial was about blasphemy, equality with God - “I and the Father are one.” John 10:30 and that is punishable by hanging on a tree.

Another question to all of this would be, was it permissible to execute hanging according to Torah? Was there ever a time that this law was ever necessary? Hanging was only allowed for blasphemy, I believe. Also, you would have to define blasphemy according to Jewish Law but also how could someone be executed by hanging when Rome had two separate “distinct” legal systems…one for Roman laws & one for Jewish, I believe, one for the Roman citizens another for Non Roman Citizens. I was under the impression that the Romans disfavored allowing local governments to impose the death penalty, is this true or false?

Also, Caiphas was appointed High-Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus, he wasn’t appointed by the Great Sanhedrin, which I would think made a difference? Another thought: For offenses which entailed flagellation the high priest could be sentenced by a court of three; after submitting to the penalty he could resume his office (“Yad,” l.c. 22). How was the High priest, Caiphas and Annas (or Ananus) removed from office? It states: He was deposed by Roman authority not by Jewish authority.

 

[MorningSong51]

P.S.

Christ was not guilty of adding nor subtracting from the commandments - because I don’t remember reading about this in the trial (the law states: “Do not add to or subtract from the mitzvot.” (Deut. 4:2). Nor had Christ ever mislead anyone - so he was not a false prophet. Christ gave people a time to repent and he continues to return people back to God, Isaiah stated, " to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."

and another verse: If you’re familiar with the following verse (out of the NT) “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[patrick457]

Caesar Augustus was the person in power at the time of Jesus’ death. Tiberius, as you’ve written (reigned AD 14-37). I’m not trying to be picky about time lines, my point was that Augustus ordered, while Jesus was in his ministry, of this slaughter of the famous evangelical from Nazareth. Augustus knew Pilate’s repetition, but sent him any way…this statement should also be at one of the links above.

Tiberius was indeed known as Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus upon his succession, but if I may point out, your choice of terminology was slightly confusing, since the honorific augustus is more commonly applied today to Tiberius’ predecessor and step-father, the first holder of that title.

Now about time-lines: Pontius Pilate became prefect of Judaea in AD 26 and held that post for ten years. We don’t know anything about Pilate before and after his career: most information we have about him consists of events that occurred during it. And while the common interpretation of Pilate - based on what Philo and Josephus say of him - is that of a ruthless, iron-fisted man who will not hesitate to shed blood, we can’t just accept the texts uncritically (though many seem to do) because the two writers also have their own personal biases to account for. (Really, who doesn’t have one?) This page tries to interpret it as such and portray Pilate in a slightly more positive manner: whether the writer’s arguments are convincing I’ll leave for the reader to decide.

And besides, at the time of Jesus there were a lot of prophets, miracle-workers and messianic claimants: to a casual observer back then, Jesus would have just been one such type. By the gift of hindsight we know today that He is the genuine article out of many, but in the context of the time-period, He wasn’t the only ‘messiah’ around.

 

[patrick457]

I’m not sure why this was passed to you, but I hope the meanings of the words has been cleared up for all to understand, as well as, my feelings concerning the death of Jesus. Plus, my position on whether it was the Roman Empire or the Jews who killed the famous messiah called The Christ. Herod pushed the issue of Jesus’ death(as did his father) by earlier selling all of Israel to Rome in part for a stake in the Kingdom of David. Herod, in the house of David, wanted his name in the historical generations, and to remain the reigning monarchy forever. Again, like his father, Herod(king of the Jews) wanted to remain the king…not Jesus! Herod, again like his father, fearing the prophecies of the coming messiah pushed to have Jesus publicly whipped and violently killed using the means of bloodshed for all to see Herod’s personal power and might over what persons then claimed as The Messiah and their future king. The biblical record recorded in 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel details how the kings stole Canaan, Israel, and the worship to the All Mighty God, that is “The Great, I AM”. :frighten:

1.) Herod Antipas wasn’t really a ‘king’, but a tetrarch, ‘ruler of a fourth’. When Herod the Great died, his kingdom was divided among his three sons: Archelaus son of Herod and Malthace the Samaritan got the lion’s share of the portion, namely the area of Judaea, Edom and Samaria, while Philip (the Tetrarch, aka (Herod) Philip II) - Herod’s son with his fifth wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem - and Antipas - Archelaus’ full brother - respectively got the northeast portion of the kingdom and the Galilee and Peraea. Archelaus eventually got into trouble because of his excessive cruelty towards his subjects and so in AD 6 his territory was reorganized into the Province of Judaea, with a prefect as its head, while Antipas and Philip continued ruling their tetrarchies.

It was his nephew and successor, Herod Agrippa I, who gained the title of ‘King of the Judaeans’ (courtesy of the succeeding emperor Gaius Caligula, who happened to be a childhood friend - they were even born on the same year!) by being granted the territory of Philip as well as the region of Abilene.

2.) According to Josephus, what caused Antipas to be kicked out of his position was precisely because his wife Herodias goaded him to seek out kingship. Jealous of Agrippa’s success, Herodias persuaded Antipas to ask Caligula for the a raise of title from tetrach to king: it would be but a small requital for the forty and so years he had spent in thankless service rendered to Rome. Originally Antipas refused, thinking it best to leave well alone, but Herodias eventually had her way and he was persuaded against his better judgment to set out for Rome to petition this request. Agrippa simultaneously presented the emperor with a list of charges against the tetrarch: he allegedly had conspired against Tiberius with Sejanus before Sejanus fell from power in AD 31 and was now plotting against Caligula with Artabanus III of Parthia. As evidence, Agrippa noted that Antipas had a stockpile of weaponry sufficient for 70,000 men stashed away in Tiberias. As luck would have it, Caligula was reading the very same letter upon Antipas’ arrival. When the latter could not deny about the report about the arsenal, he was sentenced on the spot to exile in Lugdunum in Gaul (modern France). Antipas’ money and territory were turned over to Agrippa; Herodias joined her husband in exile, after disdainfully rejecting the emperor’s offer to leave her in peace.

3.) And while we’re at it, no, the Herods were not of the Davidic line. Ever since the Hasmoneans aka the Maccabees - who were themselves not of Davidic stock, but priests from the tribe of Levi - established a monarchy of their own following their revolt the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty, no descendant of David has ever occupied the royal throne in Israel. In Babylon, descendants of David did hold the hereditary princely post of exilarch, but this was mostly an honorary position. Herod the Great was really an Idumaean, a non-Jew by birth (though his family - which had connections with the Hasmoneans - did convert to Judaism along with most Idumaeans ever since their territory was conquered in the 140s to 130s BC), who really only received his kingship over Judaea through the Roman Senate. So it’s not so much about the ‘kingdom of David’ (which was after all already a thing of the past), but the ‘kingdom of Herod’.

4.) Antipas did not have a direct hand in the death of Jesus, unless you’re holding to the Gospel of Peter (where it is Antipas who sentences Jesus to death and the Jews who literally crucify Him - Pilate is absolved of any guilt whatsoever); if we look at Luke, Pilate offered Jesus to be sent to him (both men were apparently in Jerusalem at the time), but after mocking Jesus, he never seemed to have done anything further.

 

[patrick457]

For starters, it was the week of Passover, so “no” trial could be held on a Jewish festival, I believe this might be the answer. Also, according to the law: No money was to be exchanged during that time or during that week,either. As to state: A Kohen is forbidden to touch anyone or anything that has been made ritually unclean through contact with the dead. ***(Then the High Priest would have been ritually unclean for not only exchanging words with Judas but giving him money. Also scripture states that it was Satan who entered into him (Judas). So I would assume that this is something “dead” and “unclean”.)

In fact, it is even debatable whether Jesus’ “trial” in front of the high priest was really a trial per se: for all we know it could have just been an informal preliminary interrogation session, composed of him and a few select advisers who were probably not too friendly with Jesus. If this is true, from the onset then the session was already a no-win. It’s kind of like how a police interrogation is different from a court hearing.

However, execution was only permitted by four methods under Torah law: stoning, burning, beheading and strangulation. These are the words used in the translation, but the Talmud explains that “burning” required that the convicted felon drink a liquid metal that would kill him immediately, and that beheading did not mean literally to remove the head, but merely severage of the windpipe and the artery to the brain, resulting in immediate death also. So being crucified, was a Roman method.

True.

The trial (from the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin) was about “acknowledgment” of his title of being the “Messiah”. The High Priest (Caiphas or Ananus) procedures during the time of the trial would not have been considered by some as being valid. The High Priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied." Again, stoning someone and hanging are two separate punishments - Stephen acknowledged Christ as being the Messiah and the Son of God, as in 1 Chronicles 28:6, the Messiah - and as a Sonship. St Paul states this perfectly, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”

So as we both know the trial was about blasphemy, equality with God - “I and the Father are one.” John 10:30 and that is punishable by hanging on a tree.

The Jewish understanding of “Messiah” did not necessarily include connotations of divinity: in fact this title, along with “Son of Man” and “Son of God” did not have a hard and fast definition (the latter two titles are more vaguer than ‘Messiah’, and earlier and contemporary Jewish literature does not offer a single definition of what ‘Messiah’ is). So we can’t say that Jesus’ and the Christian’s understanding of the titles were similar to say, how people like the disciples, the Temple priests, and the crowds back then took these terms to mean.

 

[patrick457]

Another question to all of this would be, was it permissible to execute hanging according to Torah? Was there ever a time that this law was ever necessary? Hanging was only allowed for blasphemy, I believe. Also, you would have to define blasphemy according to Jewish Law but also how could someone be executed by hanging when Rome had two separate “distinct” legal systems…one for Roman laws & one for Jewish, I believe, one for the Roman citizens another for Non Roman Citizens. I was under the impression that the Romans disfavored allowing local governments to impose the death penalty, is this true or false?

There are two main camps here: one is that Rome allowed the Jews some limited right to execute capital punishment for religious cases while keeping secular offenses for itself, the other being that, as in other provinces in the Empire, only Rome has the sole right to sentence people to death and withheld it from local courts (that is not to say of course that there would not have been lynchings and exercises of vigilante justice in which the Romans choose to turn a blind eye into). Rome usually withdrew the right of capital punishment or gave only limited use of it in order to prevent local courts from legally turning against sympathizers and collaborators to Roman rule.

Also, Caiphas was appointed High-Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus, he wasn’t appointed by the Great Sanhedrin, which I would think made a difference? Another thought: For offenses which entailed flagellation the high priest could be sentenced by a court of three; after submitting to the penalty he could resume his office (“Yad,” l.c. 22). How was the High priest, Caiphas and Annas (or Ananus) removed from office? It states: He was deposed by Roman authority not by Jewish authority.

At the time of the Maccabees, aka the Hasmoneans (who were of priestly lineage), whoever was king at the time was usually also the high priest. Now the Jewish priesthood of course was a hereditary job, which the Jews traced back to Aaron. During the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the high priests, who were rulers of the nation, were (or assumed to be) descendants of Zadok the priest (1 Kings 1:28-45). The Hasmoneans were not of Zadokite lineage, but upon their rise to power during their successful revolt against the Seleucids the natural consequence was that the leading member of the family was declared high priest. When Simon the Hasmonean ascended to the high priesthood, the previously ruling Zadokite family was deposed (1 Maccabees 14:41-49), though the system of government remained the same.

Herod the Great was not of priestly lineage (nor was he fully Jewish either), so he had to be content to appoint high priests to the position during his reign. When Rome deposed Archelaus and reorganized his territory, the privilege was passed on to the prefect or to his superior, the legate of Syria, though it sometimes granted the right of appointment to a member of Herod’s family. For sixty years (AD 6-66), the high priest was always chosen from a pool of four families of aristocratic priests. As political appointees, they did not enjoy the prestige of the hereditary high priests of ancient times, but nevertheless they had a lot of authority.

We can’t be sure whether one permanently appointed council or Great Sanhedrin actually existed as such during the time of Jesus as the later Mishna describes it or whether there was a variety of temporarily convened sanhedrins, including those directly convened by the high priest, as smaller sanhedrins seem to have dotted the landscape.