01 PRE-TRIAL DAYS JESUS OF NAZARETH

CHAPTER - PRE-TRIAL DAYS JESUS OF NAZARETH, MESSIAH OF THE JEWS AND SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, was born in the closing days of the reign of the tyrant Herod “the Great.”

Herod died in the year of Rome 750 and that year corresponds to the year 4 B.C. It follows, therefore, that Jesus was probably born in the year 4 or B.C. This confused chronology makes it difficult to fix the year of His trial with certainty, and that year is variously stated to be A.D. 29, 30 or 33.

Joseph and Mary fled with Jesus into Egypt to escape the massacre of the infants of Bethany ordered by Herod. Dean Farrar thinks that about twenty-seven infants were involved in the massacre. On their return after Herod’s death they settled in Nazareth in Galilee, of which Joseph and Mary were natives. Here, apparently, Jesus was brought up to Joseph’s trade of carpenter, was “subject to His parents,” and “advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” At the age of twelve He was taken by His parents to Jerusalem, where He held a discussion with the learned Rabbis, “both hearing them and asking them questions.” “And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and His answers.” It is not known whether or not any of these Rabbis took part in His trial some twenty years later. Of the next eighteen years of His life we know nothing. We learn from Luke 3:1-38 that Jesus was about thirty years old when He was baptized by John the Baptist. After a period of severe temptation, testing and preparation in the wilderness, He commenced His public ministry. Various estimates have been given of the length of this ministry, the general view being that it lasted for three years at least, covering three, if not four, Passovers. Josephus makes only a brief reference to the trial of Jesus by Pilate and says nothing about a trial before the Sanhedrim Thus: “Now, there was about this time” (i .e . the time of Pilate, A.D. 26-36), “Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

He drew over to Him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned Him to the Cross, those that loved Him at the first did not forsake Him; for He appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after Him, are not extinct at this day” (Ant. 18. 3, 3). (This quotation from Josephus is generally regarded by historians as containing Christian interpolations.)

JEWISH MESSIANIC HOPES After the death of Herod and the distribution of his kingdom among his sister and sons, the Jews made more than one attempt to persuade the Emperor to remove this Idumean monarchy and allow a return of the High Priestly State under the direct control of the Romans. The first attempt failed, and the Emperor confirmed Herod’s distribution of the kingdom; but in A.D. 6, he granted a joint petition of Jews and Samaritans that Judaea should be formed into a Roman province. Archelaus, Ethnarch of Judaea, one of Herod’s sons, was banished to Gaul, and his departure was followed by the arrival of the first Roman Procurator. THE TERRORISTS The Petitions to Rome had not been made out of any love for the Romans but as the best way of preserving peace among the contending factions of Jews. The common people, for their part, detested the Roman yoke and looked with suspicion upon the friendship of their Rulers, most of whom were Sadducees, with the Roman authorities. In particular the Zealots, with their left wing the Assassins, the Jewish terrorists of those days, regarded their rulers, to use a modern term, as “Quislings.” The policy of the Zealots was complete and open enmity to the Occupying Power. They appear to have originated as followers of a man called Judas, whose father had been killed by Herod, and they were strongest in Galilee. They refused to pay tribute to Caesar, regarded it as a religious duty to kill Romans, and Jews whom they knew to have Roman sympathies, and were ready to support any prophet or self-styled Messiah who proclaimed the imminent coming of God and the establishment of His Kingdom. The Assassins were even more extreme, and regarded marriage with a Gentile as a crime that merited death, and later went to the length of murdering the High Priest, whom they suspected of pro-Roman sympathies. (See Schofield, p. 292.)

Simon, one of the disciples of Jesus, was a Zealot; and it is probable that Barabbas, in custody for making insurrection against the Romans, who figured in the trial of Jesus before Pilate, was a terrorist who in the course of his sedition and insurrection had murdered a Roman and was on that account popular with his fellow countrymen. “The age which saw the Birth of the Messiah was quivering with expectation” (Pressense). Notwithstanding the differences which existed between the various Jewish sects and parties, all, save the Sadducees, were united in the hope that the long-promised Messiah would soon appear and deliver Israel from foreign domination. The Sadducees regarded the Messianic idea as politically dangerous, but did not go so far as to deny it, for they acknowledged the authority of the Scriptures. The Pharisees, on the other hand, who represented the bulk of the people, “believed in the coming of the Messiah with all their hearts, and made it a political and spiritual ideal” (Klausner). Many were ready to cry, “Lo, here: lo, there.”

THEUDAS Various impostors arose, such as Theudas, of whom Josephus says: “Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea [A.D. 44-46] that a certain charlatan, 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” (Ant. 20, 5, 1).

JUDAS OF GALILEE “After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed” ( Acts 5:37).

JOHN THE BAPTIST The advent of John the Baptist, proclaiming “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” created a great sensation. “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan” ( Matthew 3:5).

Many thought that possibly John himself was the long-promised Messiah, for they “mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ, or not” ( Luke 3:15). The Rulers of the Jews also were gravely perturbed and sent emissaries to question him as to his identity and mission. “The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? That we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was preferred before me: for he was before me” ( John 1:19-24; John 1:29-30).

Later on, after the murder of John, Jesus asked His disciples “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some Elias [i .e . Elijah]; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets” ( Matthew 16:13-14). It is interesting to note that Jesus said to His disciples concerning John the Baptist, “If ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come” ( Matthew 11:14).

MISSION TO THE JEWS At the beginning of His public ministry, Jesus appears to have confined His Mission to the Jews. “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” ( Matthew 15:24). When Jesus sent His disciples forth to preach and to teach, He charged them: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” ( Matthew 10:5-6).

MISSION TO THE GENTILES The question whether or no Jesus had a Mission to the Gentiles as well as to Israel was a thorny one; it caused much discussion, and, when the Gentiles accepted Jesus, controversy arose as to whether they became Jews or remained Gentiles. In Acts 21:1-40 and Acts 22:1-30, we read that when Paul was rescued from the Jews by the chief Roman captain and was given permission to address them from the stairs of the castle, they heard him in silence until he mentioned that Jesus had sent him to the Gentiles; when he mentioned that fact pandemonium broke out, and they shouted, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live.”

Again, when “the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. they that were of the circumcision contended with” Peter on the subject, and he was hard put to it to convince them that believing Gentiles as well as Jews had received the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 11:1-18). Jewish national pride is truly expressed in the Talmud: “Each Israelite is worth more before God than all the people who have been or shall be” (Gfrorer, 1. page. 214).

MIXED RECEPTION Many found some of the utterances of Jesus to be “hard sayings.” He had a mixed reception. In His own country and amongst His own kith and kin He received but little honor. When He taught in their synagogues they said: “Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren. and his sisters, are they not all with us?. Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him” ( Matthew 13:54-57). “How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?. From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with him” ( John 6:42; John 6:66).

But, little by little, Jesus increased His hold over the people, and they said, “When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?” ( John 7:31). The Scribes and Pharisees taught that Jesus was a sorcerer, and did their utmost to discredit and defame Him. Any who confessed that Jesus was the Christ was put out of the synagogue; all such in Jerusalem were excommunicated.

NICODEMUS But Nicodemus, a Ruler of the Jews, expressed the view of many when he said to Jesus: “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him” ( John 3:2). “Among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:42-43).

Some would “take Him by force, to make him a king” ( John 6:15); others “took. up stones to cast at him” ( John 8:59). His life was often threatened. Yet they could not but be impressed by the miracles performed before their eyes and they constantly sought for some great and overwhelming sign as proof of His Messiahship. When Jesus told them that that sign would be His resurrection from the dead ( Matthew 12:39-40) they failed to grasp His meaning. Jesus was to them the Man of Mystery.

LAZARUS The climax in the ministry of Jesus was reached when He raised Lazarus from the dead. This miracle had an electrifying effect upon the population, just as it decided the Pharisees and Sadducees to close their ranks and make common cause against Jesus to put Him to death. It was the immediate cause of the enthusiastic Palm Sunday crowds only five days before His arrest: “For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him” ( John 12:18-19). THE MIRACLES In view of what modern critics say about the miracles of Jesus, it may be emphasized that not only the believers in Jesus but His enemies also accepted the fact of the miracles. The great issue in those days was not whether or not the miracles were performed, but by what power they were performed. The believing Jews, such as Nicodemus, were satisfied that Jesus performed the miracles by the power of God ( John 3:2); while the unbelieving Pharisees contended that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub — a Satanic agency ( Matthew 12:24). Jesus was now “mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” ( Luke 24:19). The coming Passover would surely see the realization of all their hopes and they would witness some stupendous act of divine intervention which would rout their enemies for ever and restore the Kingdom to Israel. So it was that towards the end of Christ’s ministry, the whole of Jewry was in a state of expectancy and suspense, a condition which was increased to fever-heat by the raising of Lazarus. At any moment there might be a political or religious explosion which would lead to a sanguinary conflict with the Occupying Power, such as in fact occurred a few years later in A.D. 70, when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed and the Jews were scattered with great loss of life; since which time they have been wanderers on the face of the earth, but always with their faces turned towards Jerusalem. The times of the great Jewish Festivals — when Jerusalem was the magnet for thousands of pilgrims, the population probably being increased to some three million souls — were occasions of special danger and called for extra vigilance on the part of the Procurator and his legions. (There was in fact a grave riot at the first Feast of the Passover after the death of Herod the Great, in which three thousand Jews were killed) (Ant. 17. 9).

Therefore, it was the custom of the Procurators, at the time of the Feasts, to leave their headquarters at Caesarea on the coast, about sixty miles from Jerusalem, and reinforce the Roman garrison of six thousand troops stationed in the fortress of Antonia adjoining the Temple. It was for this reason that Pilate was in Jerusalem at the time when Jesus was arrested.

Pilate had under his command an army of some thirty-five thousand troops, consisting of the 5th, the 10th and the 15th legions and auxiliaries, with which to maintain law and order in Judea. THE ROMAN PROCURATORS The removal of Archelaus from Judea in A.D. 6 was followed by the arrival of the first Roman Procurator. The Procurators were paid a fixed stipend from the Imperial treasury. The Procurator was the direct representative of Caesar and responsible to the Emperor for the good government of the Province, notwithstanding that his superior officer was the Imperial Legate of Syria. He was Governor, Administrator and Judge. The High Priest was his nominee and answerable to him for the good behavior of the Jews. The Procurator had the custody of the High Priest’s vestments and could and did depose the High Priests at will. Throughout the regime of the Procurators, the Jews continued to be governed by their own Rulers; and the Jewish Courts, the Sanhedrins, continued to function, but always subject to the overriding authority of the Procurator, who deprived those Courts of the power to put any man to death. The Jewish Courts might convict a Jew of a capital offense, and in one case only they might try and convict a Roman; but it was unlawful for the Jewish Court to give effect to the conviction — the case had to be remitted to the Procurator for ratification or otherwise of the conviction. This state of the law was well known to the Jews, as they frankly admitted when accusing Jesus before Pilate: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” ( John 18:31). But the High Priest and the Sanhedrin did not always observe this law and sometimes exceeded the jurisdiction permitted to them. The inevitable result was the deposition of the High Priest and the appointment of another. Owing to the frequency with which the Procurators changed the High Priests there were several ex-High Priests alive at the same time. But while no ex-High Priest, vis-à-vis the Romans, could represent the Jewish nation, an ex-High Priest performed many other functions of no concern to the Romans. Moreover, whatever the Romans might do, the Jews regarded a High Priest as appointed for life. Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, before whom Jesus first appeared after His arrest in Gethsemane, was the most notable example of a High Priest deposed by the Romans who continued to exercise much power in Jewry after his deposition.

Many a Roman Procurator lost his reputation in Palestine. The Jews were a turbulent race and constantly presented petitions to the Emperor complaining of some act or other of a Procurator. The first Procurator, Coponius, was in office four years; the second, Ambivius, three years; the third, Rufus, one year. The fourth, Gratus, was in office for eleven years, during which time several High Priests were deposed, their tenure of office being about two years each. The fifth Procurator was Pontius Pilate, who held the position from A.D. 26 to 36, during the whole of which time Caiaphas retained office as High Priest, a significant fact showing how cleverly he walked the political tight-rope.

Caiaphas was in office at the time Pilate arrived in Palestine and remained in office until shortly after Vitellius, Legate of Syria, ordered Pilate to return to Rome to report to the Emperor. After Pilate’s departure, Vitellius deposed Caiaphas from the High Priesthood. Caiaphas was succeeded by his brother-in-law, Jonathan.

One interesting and much-debated question which has a bearing on the arrest and trial of Jesus is whether or not the Procurators permitted the High Priests to summon the Sanhedrin without their consent. The account given by Josephus of the trial and execution of James, the brother of Jesus, in A.D. 62, suggests that such consent was necessary.

Josephus (Ant. 20. 9. 1) says: “And now Caesar, upon heating of the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judaea, as Procurator. Ananus (the newly-appointed High Priest and son of Annas) was a bold man in his temper and very insolent. he thought he had now a proper opportunity to exercise his authority. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of Judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the king (Agrippa) desiring him to send to Ananus, that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed himTHAT IT WAS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANANUS TO ASSEMBLE ASANHEDRIN WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Daimmeus, High Priest.” But it may be that the action of Ananus in summoning the Sanhedrin without the consent of the Procurator was unlawful only because at that time the Procurator, i .e . he who personified the Roman Law, was not resident in the country, Festus being dead and his successor not having yet arrived. Or it may be that the true view is that of Schurer, who says: “All that is meant by the statement of Josephus is, that the High Priest had no fight to hold a court of SUPREME JURISDICTION in the absence and without the consent of the Procurator” (Schurer, p. 189). In any case, the action of the High Priest and Sanhedrin in carrying out a sentence of death passed by them was obviously unlawful. THE RULERS OF THE JEWS THE HIGH PRIEST The most important man in all Jewry was the High Priest. He was the ecclesiastical, administrative, political and judicial head of the Jewish State.

During the Roman occupation, just as the Procurator represented the Roman State, so the High Priest represented the Jewish State. The High Priest was the nominee of the Procurator and was responsible to him for the good order and discipline of the Jews. Of the High Priests in general, Josephus says (Ant. 20:10): “History informs us that Aaron, the brother of Moses, officiated to God as a High Priest, and that, after his death, his sons succeeded him immediately; and that this dignity hath been continued down from them all to their posterity. Whence it is the custom of our country, that no one should take the high priesthood of God, but he who is the blood of Aaron, while everyone that is of another stock, though he were king, can never obtain that high priesthood.” The High Priest was also supreme Judge in Israel. “As Moses first presided over the seventy elders, so did the High Priest thereafter preside over the Greater Sanhedrin” ( Numbers 1:6; Mishnah , Sanhedrin 1. 6; Ant . 4. 8. 14). No one in Israel was allowed to disobey the orders of the High Priest.

Schurer says (p.181): “In a document of so early a date as the national decree declaring the combined office of High Priest and Sovereign to be vested by right of inheritance in the family of Simon the Maccabean, it was ordained that nobody was to be allowed to contradict his (Simon’s) orders, or to convene an assembly in any part of the country without his knowledge or consent.” “In the time of Christ it may be held as certain. that the office of President (of the Sanhedrin) was always occupied by the High Priest for the time being, and that, too, in virtue of his being such” (Schurer, p. 184). These statements are helpful in clearing up the difficulty of deciding whether it was Annas or Caiaphas who presided over the trial of Jesus and in considering whether or not the High Priest had inherent power to issue a warrant for the arrest of Jesus.

Throughout the public ministry of Jesus the High Priest was a Sadducee. THE SCRIBES The Scribes were specialists in religious law. In the time of Jesus most of them were Sadducees. They were the zealous guardians of that law and the real teachers of the people. They were also the legal advisers of the Sanhedrin and acted as clerks of the court. They recorded the proceedings; they sat one at each end of the semicircle of judges; one recorded the arguments in favor of acquittal of the accused, and the other the arguments in favor of conviction. Some Rabbis held that there should be three Scribes in court—the third to record both sets of arguments.

They required of their pupils the most absolute reverence, surpassing even the honor felt for parents. “Let thine esteem for thy friend border upon thy respect for thy teacher, and respect for thy teacher on reverence for God” (Mishnah , Aboth. 4. 12). “Respect for a teacher should exceed respect for a father, for both father and son owe respect to a teacher” (Mishnah , Kerithoth. 6. 9). They claimed first place in order of precedence. “They love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi” ( Matthew 23:6-7).

It was part of the duty of the Scribes to think out moot points of law upon which the Judges of the Sanhedrin might sharpen their legal wits. The holding of “moots” for the discussion of “nice” points of law has been a favorite pastime of lawyers of all times. To this day “moots” are held in the Inns of Court in London. The Scribes, together with some of the Pharisees, “strained out gnats and swallowed camels.” They grasped at the shadow and lost the substance of the law. They were all for forms and ceremonies; the letter of the law was more important to them than its spirit. They “omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith” (Matthew 23:23). Jesus was careful to uphold the authority of their office, while condemning the way in which they discharged their duties. Said He: “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” ( Matthew 23:2-3). THE PHARISEES The Pharisees, i .e . the Separatists, became a distinctive sect in the second century B.C., in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. They claimed a superiority, both in knowledge and in observance of the law of Moses.

They were the popular and democratic party, and held a position of great influence and authority among their fellows. Their fundamental principle was tradition. They were the custodians of the oral explanations of the Written Law; these explanations, handed down from generation to generation, became tradition. This law of tradition the Pharisees held to have been first delivered to Moses at Sinai; and then to have been gradually completed by decrees of prophets and wise men, and the decisions of lawful authorities in the course of succeeding years. The Pharisees taught absolute obedience to these traditions; but in doing so had reduced themselves to a condition of spiritual slavery and some had become heartless formalists and hypocrites. De Pressense (p. 99), dealing with the movement of thought in Palestine before the Birth of Christ, says: “From the time of Ezra, and the extinction of the spirit of prophecy, the doctor or rabbi became the foremost personage of the Judaism of the decline. A complete summary of his doctrine is given in the famous precept — ‘ SET A HEDGE ABOUT THE LAW AND MAKE MANY DISCIPLES’ (Talmud , Pirke Aboth. p. 483). ‘Tradition is the check of the law,’ say the rabbis again. Nothing could be better adapted than such a maxim to exalt their own importance. This revolution is completely achieved in the time of Herod. The doctor boldly claims his place on the highest seat of the hierarchy, and above the prophet. The pride of the scribe rises to such a point that it concludes by seeing in heaven only a school of rabbis; and God Himself appears to be clothed with the rabbinical insignia. (Gfrorer, 1. p. 278). Soon tradition is unhesitatingly placed above Scripture. The rabbi declares that there is danger in reading freely the sacred books, because the disciples may be led to place greater confidence in them than in the words of his master. The Talmud is to be read twice as much as the Bible. Honoring the master is the same thing as honoring God. (Gfrorer, 1. pp. 150, 151). “To increase their reputation, the rabbis gave their instructions gratuitously: on this account it was that each of them was to learn a trade. “‘At five years of age,’ says the Talmud, ‘the sacred studies should be commenced; at ten, the youth should devote himself to tradition; at thirteen, he should know and fulfill the commandments of the Lord; at fifteen he should perfect his studies.’ “The disciple who had passed the first degree of learning took his seat at the foot of the doctrinal chair, and had the fight to speak. It was needful to pass the third degree of initiation to become a rabbi. The memory had to be singularly exercised to retain the medley of Pharisaic traditions which were not fixed in writing. The disciple promised not to change one iota of that which was transmitted to him, under pain of being untrue to God Himself, and of drawing down the malediction of the chosen people. ‘He who gives explanations, not in conformity with tradition, should have no part in the future world, even though he have well understood the law, and done many good works.’ Nothing can give a just idea of the complicated puerility of such teaching, weaving, as it does, very spiders’ webs in the vacuum of thought. Subtlety which knew no bounds was the reigning genius. It spent itself in the most absurd use of the allegorical, and turned the plainest texts into enigmatical ciphers.”

Referring to the Pharisees’ devotion to tradition, Jesus said: “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” ( Matthew 15:1-9), and of the Pharisaic formalists themselves He observed’ they “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” ( Luke 18:9).

They thanked God they were not as other men. Amid such pedantic formalists, Jesus grew up “as a root out of a dry ground” (Isaiah 53:2).

Dean Milman (History of Jews, Book 10) says: “The generous and selfdevoted Assideans degenerated into the haughty, tyrannical and censorious Pharisees.” They lived an austere life. Josephus likens them to the Stoics.

He also says (Ant. 28. 1. 3.): “They live meanly and despise delicacies in diet and they follow the government of reason. When they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit, since their notion is that it hath pleased God that events should be decided in part by the council of fate, in part by such as man will accede thereunto, acting therein virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.”

It is interesting to recall that when Archelaus was appointed Ethnarch of Judea on the death of his father, Herod “the Great,” and “all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their goodwill to Caesar, and to the King’s (Archelaus’) government, these very men” (i .e . the Pharisees) “did not swear, being above six thousand” (Ant. 17. 2. 4). “The Pharisees represented the bulk of the people; they did not allow belief in the Messiah to evaporate into a species of visionaries far removed from practical possibilities; yet they believed in it with all their heart and made it a political and a spiritual ideal” (Klausner, p. 201). THE SADDUCEES The Sadducees were the wealthy political aristocrats of the Jewish people. In the time of Jesus, the Temple and all local government was in the hands of the Sadducean-Boethusean priests; hence “the Chief Priests and the Scribes and the Elders mentioned in the Gospels were almost entirely Sadducees” (Klausher, p. 334). But although they were in office and in power and opposed to the Pharisees in many ways, they were obliged by public opinion to have regard to the “notions ” of the Pharisees ; “otherwise,” says Josephus, “the multitude would not otherwise bear them.” (Ant. 18. 1. 4.) The Sadducees dominated the Sanhedrin. They derived great wealth from the business side of the Temple services, involving as it did the sale of cattle and birds for the sacrifices and the changing of money from Roman to Jewish currency. The Sadducees must have been particularly incensed when, on the Monday before His arrest, Jesus drove the money-lenders and cattle dealers from the Temple, saying: “My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” ( Matthew 21:13). The Sadducees did not share the Pharisees’ enthusiasm for the Messianic idea, “but did not go so far as to deny it” (Klausher, p. 201). The Pharisees were by nature more lenient in all that concerned punishments (Ant. 13. 10. 6), and “the Sadducees were the harshest of all the Jews in their judgments” (Ant. 20. 9. 1). The Sadducees were not as implacably opposed to the Roman occupation as were the majority of their fellowcountrymen, and no doubt by their cooperation with the Romans won many favors for the Jews ( Acts 24:2). They denied the binding authority of any oral additions to the Written Law; they also held that there was no resurrection and no rewards or punishments after death; they did not believe in the existence of angels or spirits, while the Pharisees confessed both ( Acts 23:8). The doctrines of the Sadducees made no appeal to the mass of the people and were accepted among the few, most of whom were members of the official and wealthy classes. THE CONSPIRACY The cleansing of the Temple was a direct challenge to the authority of the Sadducees, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead was the “last straw” so far as they were concerned, as it was an event which struck at the very roots of their denial of any resurrection. Therefore, they determined to put to death not only Jesus but Lazarus as well “because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus” ( John 12:10-11). So they joined hands with the Pharisees and made common cause with them against Jesus, their fear being that unless they put Him to death “all men would believe on Him,” and there would probably be an insurrection against the Romans, in which case the latter would “destroy their place and nation,” and they would lose all. Therefore, from the time of the raising of Lazarus, the conspiracy against Jesus was in full swing, with the Sadducees taking the lead.

JEWISH COURTS The Jewish communities were governed by their local Sanhedrins. A city with one hundred and twenty men resident therein was entitled to its own Sanhedrin (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 1. 6).

According to the Mishnah, there were three Courts of Law in Jerusalem: the Greater Sanhedrin, the Lesser Sanhedrin and an Inferior Court. The Sanhedrin was not primarily or principally a legal assembly; it combined many functions, ecclesiastical, administrative and legal. As to the Courts at Jerusalem, one held its sittings at the entrance to the Temple Mount; another at the entrance to the Court of the Temple, and the third in the square chamber. The practice was that “They (the local Court in search of guidance) used to come first to the Court that was at the gate of the Temple Mount, and the one would say: ‘In this way have I expounded and in that way have my fellows expounded; in this way have I taught and in that way have my fellows taught.’ If they (of that Court) had heard a tradition, they told it to them; otherwise they betook themselves to them of the Court that was at the gate of the Temple Court, and the one would say (repeating the former statement). If they (of that Court) had heard a tradition, they told it to them; otherwise they both came in to the Great Court that was in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, whence the law goes forth to all Israel” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 2. 2). The Greater Sanhedrin, the Court of One-and-seventy Judges, was the Supreme Court of Appeal; it also sat as a Court of First Instance. “A tribe, a false prophet, or a High Priest may not be tried save by the Court of One-and-Seventy; they may not send forth the people to a battle waged of free choice save by the decision of the Court of One-and-seventy; they may not add to the city, or to the Courts of the Temple.; they may not set up Sanhedrins for the several tribes.; they may not proclaim any city to be an Apostate City save by the decision of the Court of One-and-seventy. “(Mishnah . Sanhedrin 1. 5). The Lesser Sanhedrin, the Court of Three-and-twenty Judges, tried cases (other than the above) concerning offenses punishable by death (Mishnah , Sanhedrin. 1. 4). The Inferior Court of three Judges tried cases concerning property, theft or personal injury and the like (Mishnah , Sanhedrin. 1, 2).

RETRIAL OF CASES As to the retrial of cases, the Mishnah (Eduroth 1. 5) provides: “A Court cannot annul the opinion of another Court unless it exceeds it both in wisdom and in numbers; if it exceeded it in wisdom but not in number, or in number but not in wisdom, it cannot annul its opinion; but only if it exceeds it both in wisdom and in number.”

QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES It would seem that, excluding the Courts at Jerusalem, the Judges of the Sanhedrins were not necessarily lawyers; they were worthy citizens of high repute. They relied for guidance about the law and procedure upon the professional lawyers (the Scribes), who were the Clerks of the Courts; just as lay justices in English Magistrates’ courts are advised by their professional clerks. “If they erred the Scribes kept them in remembrance” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin. 5. 5).

CONVENING OF COURT In addition to meeting of their own volition, the Sanhedrin could be compelled to assemble on the order of the Procurator (Ant. 20. 9. 1).

JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of the Greater Sanhedrin was, in the time of Christ, confined to Judea; but there was a sense in which it enjoyed a larger jurisdiction by consent of Jewish communities living beyond the Judean borders (Schurer, p. 185). For example, we know from Acts 9:1-43 that the High Priest armed Saul of Tarsus with letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of the Christian way of life he could arrest them and bring them bound to Jerusalem for trial. In view of the fact that so many people think of the Sanhedrin as a purely Ecclesiastical Court, the following extract from Schurer (p. 185) is interesting: “There could not possibly be a more erroneous way of defining the extent of its jurisdiction as regards the kinds of causes with which it was competent to deal than to say that it was the spiritual or theological tribunal in contradistinction to the civil judicatories of the Romans. On the contrary, it would be more correct to say that it formed, in contrast to the foreign authority of Rome, that supreme native Court which here, as almost everywhere else, the Romans had allowed to continue as before, only imposing certain conditions with regard to competency. To this tribunal, then, belonged all those judicial matters and all those measures of an administrative character which either could not be competently dealt with by the inferior local courts or which the Roman Procurator had not specially reserved for himself.”

There was apparently only one case in which, if a Roman committed an offense, the Sanhedrin could try the Roman. That was if a person who was not a Jew passed the barrier at the Temple in Jerusalem, beyond which only Jews could go, and thus intrude into the inner Court; he was punished with death, and that even though he were a Roman. Titus referred to this matter in his speech to the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem, when he was trying to save the Temple from destruction: “Did we not grant you permission to put to death any one who went beyond the barrier, even though he were a Roman?” (Wars,6. 2. 4). But even in such cases the condemnation still required confirmation by the Roman Procurator.