Unit 15 – The Passion Escalates

15.03.09 PETER DENIES JESUS AGAIN

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.03.09 PETER DENIES JESUS AGAIN

15.03.09 Mt. 26:73-74a; Jn. 18:26-27a

 

PETER DENIES JESUS AGAIN  

Mt. 73 After a little while those standing there approached and said to Peter, “You certainly are one of them, since even your accent gives you away.” 74a Then he started to curse and to swear with an oath, “I do not know the man!”

 

Jn. 26 One of the high priest’s slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Didn’t I see you with Him in the garden?”

27a Peter then denied it again.

 

 

15.03.09a

 

While Jesus was on trial, Peter was denying Him.  The first denial appears to have occurred at midnight and the denial was given in a casual and simple manner. The second denial was probably at 3:00 a.m. at which time Peter swore under oath that he did not know Jesus.  Obviously, his emotional pressure was intensifying. Sometime thereafter someone recognized him by his accent at which time he cursed Jesus. This detail is preserved in the Greek language, but is often lost in translation.[1]

 

“Your accent gives you away.”   There was a strong difference in dialect between Jerusalem and Galilee.  In fact, the Aramaic language spoken in Galilee, a/k/a Galilean Aramaic, was a branch of Middle Western Aramaic and clearly different from the Aramaic of Jerusalem.[2] Scholars believe this was due, in part, to the many Jews who returned from Babylon and settled in the province of Galilee in the second century B.C. When Ezra and Nehemiah returned from Babylon, there is no mention (in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah) of anyone settling in Galilee or Perea, only in the tribal areas of Judah and Benjamin as well as in Jerusalem.  By the first century, the difference of voice inflections was so significant that some priests from Galilee were not permitted to speak words of blessing in the temple because their pronunciation of the gutturals was misleading.[3]  The following comment refers to priests from three northern towns.  In this quotation, the purpose of a priest lifting his hands was for pronouncing a blessing.  This ark was not the lost Ark of the Covenant, but a piece of furniture called an “ark” in which the Torah scroll was kept.

 

A priest from Haifa or Beth Shean should not lift up his hands.  It has been taught to the same effect; ‘We do not allow to pass before the ark either men from Beth Shean or from Haifa or from Tib’onim because they pronounce alif as ‘ayin and ‘ayin as alif…. If you were a Levite, you would not be qualified to chant, because your voice is thick.

 Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 24b

 

The gospel narrative gives a great deal of difficulty to critics who claim that this gospel is a fabrication, because Peter is shown to be a coward and liar.  The once brave man, who was willing to die for Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, now denied Him repeatedly.  He could not be placed in a more degrading light than he is portrayed by Matthew and John.  No creative fabricator would have placed the hero in this position.  When examining the Pseudepigrapha books, the heroes are always individuals who were victimized by others but never guilty of their sins (i.e. Testament of the Patriarchs).  In the gospels, Peter is one of the central figures in the life of Christ and has a reputation of making embarrassing comments, hasty decisions and, in this case, the ultimate sin of denying knowledge of Jesus. The gospel writers were determined to record the truthfulness of the events, no matter how shameful one individual or another would appear.  Peter, no doubt, was very much alive when this was written, yet after the resurrection, his life was profoundly changed (see Acts).  This account, which reveals some of the failures of the disciples, is another Testament to the accuracy of the gospel writers.

[1]. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 24, page 9.

 

[2]. Cohen, “Galilean Aramaic: Its Linguistic and Historical Significance.” 53.

[3]. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 1:168-69, 171.

 



15.03.10 THE ROOSTER CROWS AND PETER WEEPS

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.03.10 THE ROOSTER CROWS AND PETER WEEPS

15.03.10 Jn. 18:27b; Lk. 22:61-62

 

THE ROOSTER CROWS AND PETER WEEPS   

 

Jn. 27b Immediately a rooster crowed.

 

Lk. 61 Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter. So Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.” 62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.

 

Even though Peter denied Jesus three times, later Jesus would deal tenderly and lovingly with him to bring him to a point of confession, forgiveness, and renewal (Jn. 21:15-17). As the Good Shepherd, Jesus carefully attended to the frustrated and broken heart of Peter and raised him up to be a significant church father.



15.03.11 THIRD TRIAL: SANHEDRIN CONDEMNS JESUS

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.03.11 THIRD TRIAL: SANHEDRIN CONDEMNS JESUS

15.03.11 Lk. 22:66-71; Mt. 27:1 Daybreak, third trial: final Jewish ratification.

 

THIRD TRIAL: SANHEDRIN CONDEMNS JESUS  

 

Lk. 66a When daylight came, the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the scribes Mt. 1b convened, plotted against Jesus to put Him to death, Lk. 66b and brought Him before their Sanhedrin. 67 They said, “If You are the Messiah, tell us.”

But He said to them, “If I do tell you, you will not believe. 68 And if I ask you, you will not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the Power of God.”

70 They all asked, “Are You, then, the Son of God?”

And He said to them, “You say that I am.”

71 “Why do we need any more testimony,” they said, “since we’ve heard it ourselves from His mouth?”

 

Before the sun was about to rise, they led Jesus into the temple complex, and into the Hall of Hewn Stone[1] which was the Sanhedrin council chamber.[2] The Jews desperately desired to convict Jesus of any charge that would carry the death sentence. Therefore, they asked, “If You are the Messiah, tell us.” Jesus responded with the most obscure answer – nothing that resembled a confession – “If I do tell you, you will not believe.”  Some scholars have said this as an affirmative and rhetorical response which the Sanhedrin immediately seized as a confession, especially since Jesus did not deny it.

 

A brief historical review at this point should aid in understanding the events. When Herod the Great secured power in 37 B.C., one of his first acts was to kill all the members of the Sanhedrin who had previously opposed him.  Consequently, future members of the high court were obviously not inclined to rule against their dictator.  After Herod’s death, his wicked son Herod Archelaus ruled Jerusalem and not only abused his power, but also manipulated the Sanhedrin. So by the end of his reign (A.D. 6), the legal powers of the court were greatly weakened by Rome, so that capital punishment could only be carried out if approved by the Roman ruler (i.e. Pilate). Annas and Caiaphas were agents of the Roman puppet-king but had no capital punishment authority. Caiaphas and his court did nothing other than to ratify the decision of Caiaphas.  Those who might have disagreed would certainly not have come to the defense of Jesus.

 

 

15.03.11.Q1 What did Jesus say that caused the Sanhedrin to condemn Him? 

 

This interesting question has stirred much discussion over the years.  The first conclusion might be that He was found guilty of claiming to be the Christ, the “Anointed One,” the Son of God (Mt. 26:63).  That seems to be an iron clad answer, except that a century later Simon bar Kokhba also declared himself to be the messiah (a political-messiah), with no charge of blasphemy.  In fact, many followed him to their deaths by Roman swords in A.D. 135, which raises a number of questions.

 

  1. Did their attitude regarding the messiah change in the interim?

 

  1. Did Simon bar Kokhba claim messiahship without deity? That would have made him popular with the Jews who had difficulty with the words and deeds of Jesus.

 

  1. Did the words of Jesus about sitting at the right hand of God offend the Sadducees, in addition to His claim to be the Christ?

 

  1. Did the “I am” statement of Mark 14:62 offend them since it was reflective of the voice of God in Exodus 3:14?

 

  1. Was it because of the right He claimed to forgive sins? This was paramount to blasphemy.

 

By definition, the word “blasphemy” in the Oral Law technically was only the speaking of the sacred name “YHWH.”[3] When the Sadducees pronounced Jesus guilty of blasphemy, they used a broader definition that was in common use at the time. Consequently, they broke their own laws in order to execute Him, but that did not matter.  Clearly, while Matthew 26:63 is an integral part of the condemnation, it is not the complete story.  The condemnation was the result of Jesus revealing His deity.

 

 

15.03.11.Q2  Were all members of the Sanhedrin in favor of Jesus’ death?

 

Absolutely not! The high court consisted of 70 members plus Caiaphas,[4] but only twenty-three were needed for a capital case and the high priest/president. Caiaphas carefully selected the voting members and many Sadducees probably owed him political favors. He may have known that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus appeared interested in Jesus, which would have been a good reason not to have them present. Furthermore, Gamaliel, who in Acts 5:38b-39 was concerned that the actions of Peter and John might be of God, would not have approved of the illegal trial of Jesus. Clearly, any members of the high court who showed any signs of accepting Jesus as the Messiah would not have been invited to the trials. In fact, some of them eventually became followers of Jesus. Finally, at this point a brief but important summary is in order. There is an irony of two points to be considered:

 

  1. Jesus provided the testimonial information that led to His conviction, and ultimately, His death. He even supplied information that false witnesses could not provide.

 

  1. The Sanhedrin attempted to hold a trial that would convict Jesus and negate His claim of Divine authority. The court’s intent was so passionate, that no one realized in reality it was the court and the Jewish nation that was on trial and it was Jesus who would be their judge. In fact, Jesus publically declared this: that He is the Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He possesses the judgment authority of the Son of Man.

 

Caiaphas and his evil band within the Sanhedrin carefully plotted and executed Jesus in the best and most efficient way possible. Yet God knew this would happen from the foundations of the earth and allowed the sacrifice of His Son to open the door of salvation for all humanity.

[1]. The name “Chamber of Hewn Stone” was derived from the square pavement stones – the only chamber in the temple with such fine smooth floor. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 3:431.

 

[2]. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13178-sanhedrin Retrieved February 22, 2014; Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 3:30-31.

[3]. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:5.

[4]. The Sanhedrin consisted of 24 chief priests who were Sadducees, 24 elders who were Pharisees, 22 scribes who were Pharisees, and Caiaphas, who was a Sadducee and president of the court; Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 24, page 6.

 

 



15.03.12 JUDAS COMMITS SUICIDE

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.03.12 JUDAS COMMITS SUICIDE

15.03.12 Mt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:18b-19; Mt. 27:6-10

 

JUDAS COMMITS SUICIDE 

 

Mt. 3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was full of remorse and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. 4 “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood,” he said.

“What’s that to us?” they said. “See to it yourself!”

5 So he threw the silver into the sanctuary and departed. Then he went and hanged himself.

 

Acts 18b He fell headfirst and burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.    19 This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that in their own language  that field is called Hakeldama (that is, Field of Blood).

 

Mt. 6 The chief priests took the silver and said, “It’s not lawful to put it into the temple treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they conferred together and bought the potter’s field with it as a burial place for foreigners. 8 Therefore that field has been called “ this day. 9 Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled. They took the 30 pieces of silver, the price of Him whose price was set by the Israelites, 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me (cf. Zech. 11:12-13; Jer. 19:1-13; 32:6-9).

 

 

15.03.12.Q1 How does one explain the obvious disagreement concerning the suicide of Judas as recorded in Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18?

Matthew 27:5 records that Judas hanged himself, while in Acts 1:18 he fell forward (headlong) and his bowels spilled upon the ground.  Some have attempted to explain that the traitor first hung himself from a tree and when the rope broke, he fell forward on the ground, causing his stomach to open. While this makes common sense to the modern reader, it is highly doubtful. Others have stated that Matthew emphasized the remorse of Judas while Luke, in the book of Acts, emphasized the judgment of God.  This may be true, but it fails to satisfactorily answer the question.

 

The ancients used several methods of execution: stoning, crucifixion, burning, death by lions or gladiators, or impalement upon a sharpened stake which was commonly used by the Assyrians, who were the cruelest and most feared people of antiquity.[1] The method almost never heard of was death by hanging with the use of a rope (a possible exception was Haman in the book of Esther).  Of all these, impaling oneself upon an impaling stick could have been the choice of death, resulting from an impulsive decision demanding immediate results, considering the emotional turmoil of Judas. By definition, a cross is an upright stake upon which one could be hung, bound, or impaled.[2]  Papias, an early Church father who supported this, said that Judas hung himself upon an impaling stick. If such a horrific death were completed, then Matthew 27:5 would not contradict Acts 1:18. The Code of Hammurabi (1754 B.C.) states that if an upper class woman causes the death of her husband, she shall be impaled upon a stake (see example 15.03.12.B below).[3] The stake of Hammurabi and the Assyrians evolved into the post with a cross beam of the first century. In fact, the word for stake was also used for cross.[4]

 

 15.03.12.A. RELIEF CARVING OF ASSYRIANS IMPALING ISRAELITES

15.03.12.A. RELIEF CARVING OF ASSYRIANS IMPALING ISRAELITES.  In 701 B.C., the Assyrians impaled live Israelites on poles during an attack on Lachish, one of forty-six cities conquered by the Assyrian King Sennacherib.  The impaling pole is believed to have been the predecessor to the cross. It is also possible that when Judas “hung” himself, he probably impaled himself and, thus, hung on the impaling pole.  If so, this would reconcile the two different biblical accounts of his death. Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

 

The phrase “hung on a tree” is more accurately translated as “impaled on a stick,” or “impaled on a pole.”[5]  If Judas impaled himself, then there is no disagreement between the accounts in Matthew and Acts.[6]

 

Judas had evil in his heart, but still shared the Passover and first communion with Jesus and fellow disciples. His suicide ought to bring incredible awareness to every believer of the importance of resolving conflicts, anger, or resentment before taking part in communion. Failure to do so could bring judgment on one’s self.  It brought a curse according to the words of the Apostle Paul, because…

 

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

 

When Judas realized he was guilty of a horrific crime, he condemned himself in accordance with the Mosaic Law.

 

22 “If anyone is found guilty of an offense deserving the death penalty and is executed, and you hang his body on a tree, 23 you are not to leave his corpse on the tree overnight but are to bury him that day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23

 

Three New Testament authors, Luke, Paul, and the unknown author of 1 Peter, all used the phrase of “hung on a tree” when describing the death of Jesus.  Obviously, the word “hung” does not have reference to the use of a rope.  In addition to Deuteronomy 21:22-23 above, note these passages:

 

  1. Acts 5:30 “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had murdered by hanging Him on a tree.”

 

  1. Acts 10:39 “We ourselves are witnesses of everything He did in both the Judean country and in Jerusalem, yet they killed Him by hanging Him on a tree.”

 

  1. Acts 13:29 “When they had fulfilled all that had been written about Him, they took Him down from the tree and put Him in a tomb.”

 

  1. Gal. 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.”

 

  1. 1 Peter 2:24 “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness.”

The word tree can mean a literal tree, a pole, or a Roman cross, but also had the double meaning of to be cursed by God.[7]  If the word “hanging” in Acts 5:30; 10:39; and 13:29 refers to crucifixion of Jesus on a cross and not a conventional rope hanging, why have some scholars insisted that Judas hung himself with the use of a rope?  Maybe they envisioned him hanging from a tree in a manner similar to that of captured horse thieves and bank robbers in America’s wild, wild, west who were executed by hanging from tree. That is hardly the case. When the Romans had a shortage of nails, many rebels were hung on a cross with their elbows tied with a rope to the cross beam.[8] If the definition of the word “hanging” had some latitude, then it should not be of restricted use relative to Judas.  Interestingly, both Jesus and Judas died carrying the curse of death.

 

15.03.12.Q2 Could Judas have asked for forgiveness

Most theologians say “no.” One can only come to our Lord by responding to the call of the Holy Spirit.  Furthermore, once his evil deed was done, Judas forgot all the teachings of Jesus concerning love and forgiveness, and focused his attention on his actions and the damned eternity waiting for him. There is a huge difference between his sin and that of Peter’s.  Peter denied Jesus; Judas betrayed Him. Saint Augustine had the following comments about the differences between the denier and betrayer:

 

It is this difference in their sins which separate Judas the betrayer from Peter the denier: not that a penitent is not to be pardoned, for we must not come into collision with that declaration of our Lord … but that therein connected with that sin is so great, that he cannot endure the humiliation of asking for it, even if he should be compelled by a bad conscience both to acknowledge and divulge his sin.  For when Judas had said, “I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood,” yet it was easier for him in despair to run and hang himself, than in humility to ask for pardon.

 Augustine, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount[9]

 

In the first century, rabbis taught that there were three kinds of eternity.

 

  1. There was heaven for observant Jews.

 

  1. There were those who went to a hell that was not eternal, but terminated in a form of death.

 

  1. There was an eternal never-ending death that was reserved for the severest sins, such as betrayal of a friend to the enemy.

 

Judas betrayed a fellow Jew and thereby caused one of his own to be crucified. For this, he believed that he was about to receive the worst eternal damnation. The thought of his deed and its consequences were so painful, that he could not endure living any longer and thereby, he hastened his arrival into the eternal flames.   The seriousness of betrayal was preserved in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls known as the Temple Scroll.  A portion of it reads as follows,

 

If 7 a man informs against his people, and delivers his people up to a foreign nation, and does harm to his people, 8 you shall hang him on the tree [Deut. 21:22-23], and he shall die.  On the evidence of two witnesses and on the evidence of three witnesses 9 he shall be put to death, and they shall hang him on the tree.  (Blank) And if a man has committed a crim[e] punishable by death, and has defected 10 into the midst of nations, and has cursed his people [and] the children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree 11 and he shall die.  And their body shall not remain upon the tree all night, but you shall bury them the same day, 12 for those hanged on the tree are accursed to God and men; you shall not defile the land which I 13 give you for an inheritance.

Dead Sea Scroll, Temple 11Q 64:6-13[10]

 

The realization of this horrific sin must have had an incredible illuminating power to Judas.  But the question is, why did he not pray for forgiveness?  No doubt, in the passion of the moment, he thought that such an option was no longer available for him, considering the severity of his deed.  He was filled with remorse (Mt. 27:3), he confessed his sin (Mt. 27:4), but he failed to ask for forgiveness.  No doubt, this is probably due to the cultural context of the day, where it was believed that there was no forgiveness for any Jew who was responsible for the death of another Jew.

 

The theological question of any possible forgiveness for Judas is beyond the scope of this study, but a brief response is this: Some will say that, by this time he had committed the unpardonable sin and the Spirit of God no longer called him to repent.  Others have suggested that, just as other demonically possessed men were delivered from demonic powers, Judas could have been likewise delivered.  Still others say he could have waited until Jesus arose and then asked Him for forgiveness; but at that time who would have thought that Jesus was going to return to life?  However, in his mind, forgiveness was impossible considering the travesty of his betrayal.  Therefore, no options were possible; there was no possible forgiveness.  For thirty pieces of silver he not only sold Jesus, but in reality, he sold himself into hell. The prophets predicted his action  centuries earlier, yet he freely chose this action. This clearly illustrates that,

 

  1. God has complete foreknowledge,

 

  1. He is always in control of personal situations and of this world, but

 

  1. He does not control individuals. He permits people to be independent free moral agents.

 

The transforming power of Jesus enabled Simon, a revolutionary Zealot, and Matthew, a Roman tax agent, to live and minister peacefully together. During the years Judas was a disciple he acted and played the part of a true disciple.  No doubt, there may have been times when he was very sincere about following Jesus. But somewhere in time, he made a willful decision to become a defector, yet he still acted and spoke like a true disciple. He was the proverbial tare in a wheat field.[11] Jesus experienced firsthand the pain of a trusted friend, who became an apostate, hardened his heart, and stood against God. Judas made his decision, but it is God who determined the consequences. It was his was eternal damnation (Acts 1:25).

 

15.03.12.Q3 Why did Jesus choose Judas for a disciple?

This question has fueled many debates.  Critics have said this is evidence that Jesus made mistakes which were not written in Scripture.  Others claim Jesus was unable to build trust and loyalty among His disciples. Still others say Jesus did not have the divine foresight that was normally attributed to Him.

 

Only Jesus knows the answer, but consider this possibility:  It is inconceivable that Jesus would have made Judas a disciple if there had not been some honest and noble enthusiasm in him, and some attachment to Himself. He was probably a man of superior energy and administrative ability which is why he was chosen to be responsible for the funds of the group, rather than Matthew who was a former tax collector and also acquainted with accounting and financial responsibilities.  Jesus was very much aware of the future actions of Judas, but elected to choose him regardless, because Jesus knew that His ultimate purpose was to die on the cross for the sins of mankind (Jn. 6:64). To read why Judas was “needed” to betray Jesus, go to 14.01.12.Q1.

 

“30 pieces of silver.” For fourteen centuries, ever since Moses wrote the Torah, the price of a common slave had been “thirty pieces of silver.” For example, if a slave was accidently killed, there was to be a thirty shekel fine levied upon the person responsible for the death (Ex. 21:32). Thirty silver coins was also a prophecy given by Zechariah (111:12), which stated that the Messiah would be betrayed for that price, implying he was a servant or slave. Those who became aware of Judas and the price of His betrayal did not miss this symbolism.[12]

 

15.03.12.Q4 How is the discrepancy between Matthew 27:6 and Acts 1:18 explained?

“It’s not lawful.” The apparent discrepancy is that in Matthew’s account, it was not legal for the priests to purchase anything for the temple using “blood money,” so they purchased the potter’s field which was not owned by the temple.  However, in Acts 1:18 Luke clearly said that Judas purchased the potter’s field with the reward of iniquity or sin.[13] He wrote to a Gentile audience and indicated the original source of the funds.  Matthew however, wrote to a Jewish audience and wanted to make sure his readers understood that the priest actually did something right this time.

 

“It is blood money.”  This confession would haunt the chief priests. It was their confession that they were co-conspirators with the former disciple.  Judas no longer wanted the money, nor could they accept it when it was offered back. They had worked so hard and feverishly to have Jesus killed, but once they succeeded, they disassociated themselves from Judas because they realized a great wrong had been committed.  Money given to the temple by dishonest donors could not be used for temple service. Therefore, such money was used for public service, not related to the temple. In this case, since Judas was dead, the chief priests purchased a potter’s field in the donor’s name (Judas). In first century thinking, this act was as if the betrayer had personally purchased the field and not the priests.

“Potter’s field.” It was the custom that individual families had family tombs.  However, potter’s fields or mass graves were for the poor, homeless, and criminals in Roman society.[14] It was common in Gentile communities that a criminal who brought great shame to a family, was left on the cross to rot and be devoured by wild animals. The Jews would never permit this to happen. They did not use mass graves like the Gentiles, but they did have a “potter’s field” or “non-family” cemetery for the poor, homeless, and criminals. The Jewish people always tried to bury their dead before sunset.[15]

 

To a reader who takes a literal viewpoint on the term “potter’s field,” he would suspect that a potter’s field might be where clay is acquired for the manufacture of clay pottery, where ovens fired the clay vessels, or where broken pieces of pottery are discarded.  But the term “potter’s field” might have been a euphemism for a mass grave since man was created and formed from dust or clay in the ground (Gen. 2:7).

 

The phrase “For the potter’s field,” can be translated to read “To buy the potter’s field.”  Because pottery kilns created an undesirable smoke, they were prohibited within the city. But some have suggested it was known as the potter’s field because of the clay that was removed from the area.

Now for a final thought on the judgment of Jesus by the Sanhedrin:  It is interesting that the supreme judicial body went through the formal exercise of a mock trial to eliminate Jesus from their midst.  They could have planned a small riot to kill Him, although not at Passover when there was increased Roman security.  Yet, judgment would fall upon those who condemned Him.  When the Romans destroyed the temple, the entire cast of Sadducees was slaughtered, along with thousands of other Jews. The human slaughter was so huge that there was no physical means to bury them before decomposition began in the semi-arid desert heat.  Therefore, thousands of corpses were merely tossed in the Valley of Hinnom that was “purchased” by the Sanhedrin in the name of Judas.

15.03.12a

 

“Blood Field.” It was also known as the “Field of blood,” and in the Hebrew Bible as the “Valley of Slaughter” (Jer. 7:31-32, 19:6, 11-14).  Two other names are Gehenna and Topheth,[16] where Ahaz (2 Kg. 16:2-3) and Manasseh (2 Kg. 21:1, 6) sacrificed infant children by burning them alive upon the altar to Molech (2 Kg. 23:10), the god of the Ammonites (1 Kg. 11:7).  Therefore, it had a reputation of ultimate death and shame. Tradition says that it was in this field where he hanged himself.

 

The “field of blood” has traditionally been identified as being south of Mount Zion in the Hinnom Valley. However, archaeologists have discovered some of the most elaborate Herodian tombs, including the tomb of Annas, who was high priest from A.D. 8-15[17] and identified later as such by Josephus in this area.[18]  This would have made this valley expensive real estate and not anything that could have been purchased with thirty pieces of silver. The mystery arises because many early Church fathers identified this as the location as where Judas was buried.  Influential church leaders, such as Eusebius in A.D. 335, Jerome in A.D. 400, and others who followed, all indicated the same field, where today the Herodian tombs reveal their secrets.[19]

 

15.03.12.B. THE VALLEY OF HINNOM

15.03.12.B. THE VALLEY OF HINNOM.  The valley as it appears today at the western side of Jerusalem, hides the location of the “field of blood.”  At one time this Valley was where Manasseh sacrificed babies to the god Molech (2 Kg. 21:1, 6; Jer. 7:31-32), where they were burned alive.  Photograph by the author.

 

A Lesson in First Century Hermeneutics:

 

15.03.12.Q5 Did Matthew make a mistake when he attributed the words of Zechariah to Jeremiah?

More specifically, the quotation is this, “What was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled.”  In Western thinking, the question answers itself. This phrase would appear to be without difficulties, until the words of Jeremiah (7:31) are researched and it is discovered that these were actually spoken by Zechariah (11:12-13).  The closest allusion to any words of Jeremiah refer to a field purchased for seventeen shekels (Jer. 32:6-9, see also 18:2-12; 19:1-13) and not thirty shekels as in Zechariah 11:12 and Matthew 27:9.  Did Matthew make a mistake in recording this portion of his gospel?  Most certainly, this is problematic to modern Western logic. To understand the statement, it is important to return to the first century to discover how the ancients processed information.[20]

 

As previously mentioned, there were two schools of biblical interpretation: the Schools of Shammai and Hillel.  The latter had established seven rules of interpretation,[21] of which the second one brought together various Old Testament passages based on common words.  For example, in the study of messianic prophecies, it would have been normal to bring together words such as shekel, silver, and potter.  Hence, there was a blend of two prophecies. Matthew referenced Jeremiah because he was the major prophet even though the bulk of the quotation came from Zechariah. Today, no Bible college student would pass a hermeneutics class with this kind of methodology, but it was common for the students in the School of Hillel, as it was with Matthew and Mark. Likewise, Mark (1:2-3) quoted Malachi (3:1) and Isaiah (40:3), but credited the entire quotation to Isaiah.[22]  The gospel writers did not make an error.  They followed the principles of scholarship that were in common use in their day.[23]

15.03.12b

 

Finally, if the Sanhedrin had the legal authority to execute Jesus, then bringing Him before Pilate would have been unnecessary.  The fact that the high court broke multiple rules of Jewish justice is indicative of the corruption of the Hellenistic leadership at this time. It is amazing that Jesus was even brought before Pilate, and not killed quietly by a Zealot or Roman assassin. But He had to die as the prophets foretold.

[1]. Caba. “Crucifixion: History and Practice.” 12-14.

 

[2]. Taylor, “Cross.” 57.

 

[3]. The Code of Hammurabi No. 153.

http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/history_mcgee/courses/his101/Source%20Documents/wc1d01.htm Retrieved January 28, 2015.

 

[4]. Robinson. “Crucifixion in the Roman World: The Use of Nails at the Time of Christ.” 34-35 n34.

 

[5]. New International Version Study Bible footnote on Deut. 21:22; Tzaferis, “Crucifixion – The Archaeological Evidence.” 48.

[6]. Another explanation states that Judas hung himself, but due to the late hour of his suicide, there was no time to bury his body prior to Passover.  Therefore, it was simply tossed over the city wall and when it fell upon the rocks of the Hinnom Valley, his abdomen spilled out. It was buried after the Passover ended.  The difficulty with this suggestion is that if great efforts were made to bury the body of Jesus who was crucified outside the city walls, why could a hasty burial not have been provided for Judas? This writer believes this argument is interesting but holds little merit. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 24, page 13.

 

[7]. Elgvin, “The Messiah Who was Cursed on the Tree.” 34.

[8]. See illustration 16.01.11.B.

 

[9]. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations: From 50 – 750 A.D. 259.

[10]. 64:6-13 = Column 64, lines 6-13.

[11]. It is a point of interest that the Jews considered a tare to be a degenerated wheat plant — precisely the description of Judas.

[12]. See the video “Insights into Selected Biblical Difficulties” 04.04.06.V.

 

[13]. Green, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; Berry, Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament.

 

[14]. Cook, “Crucifixion and Burial.” 204.

 

[15]. Josephus, Wars 4.5.2.

 

[16]. Topheth means “the place of burning.” This would not have been a garbage dump, but rather, a place where pottery kilns created a constant smoke.  First century peasant Jews did not have nor could they afford to burn garbage, as anything combustible but not needed elsewhere was used for cooking fuel.

[17]. Ritmeyer and Ritmeyer, “Akeldama.” 31.

[18]. Josephus, Wars 5.12.2.

[19]. Ritmeyer and Ritmeyer, “Akeldama.” 26.

[20]. See also 05.01.02.X “The Major Prophet Speaks.”

 

[21]. Some ancient scholars debated on the number of rules.  Rabbi Hillel said there were seven, but shortly after him Rabbi Ishmael said there were thirteen. See Appendix 30 “Hermeneutics 101.”

 

[22]. See 05.02.01.X.

 

[23]. Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible. 399-400.



15.04 The Three Roman Trials

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.04 The Three Roman Trials

Unit 15

The Passion Escalates

 

Chapter 04

The Three Roman Trials

 

15.04.00.A. JESUS BEFORE PILATE. Artwork by William Hole of the Royal Scottish Academy of Art, 1876. (2)

15.04.00.A. JESUS BEFORE PILATE. Artwork by William Hole of the Royal Scottish Academy of Art, 1876.  According to the customary Roman method, a private examination of Jesus by Pilate would have occurred either in Pilate’s library or in his business room (office). Later Pilate would present Jesus to the waiting Jews for another discussion. As much as the Roman governor tried, he could not find anything illegal or threatening about Jesus and, in fact, attempted to free Him. See John 18:33-38.



15.04.01 Introduction

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.04.01 Introduction

15.04.01 Introduction

After the three Jewish trials, Jesus experienced three Roman trials.[1] These judicial, or quasi-judicial, proceedings occurred within a few short hours. The gross illegality of the Jewish trials stands in sharp contrast to the legal Roman trials, which repeatedly found Jesus innocent of all charges.[2] So why did the Romans crucify Him?  As will be explained, there was considerable turmoil and fighting within the Roman political system. The political dissension appears to have been the deciding factor as to why Pilate finally caved in to the desires of the Sadducees. Essentially, he feared for his own political future. However, to better understand the biblical narrative, it is important to quickly review who ruled which area.

 

  1. Herod Antipas, one of the heirs of Herod the Great, ruled the District of Galilee and Perea (a district east of the Jordan River.

 

  1. Caiaphas, the high priest ruled Jerusalem and to a lesser degree, the rest of Judea.

 

  1. Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect, had general oversight of these three areas which formed the Province or District of Judea (sometimes called Judaea):[3]

 

  1. Idumea

 

  1. Samaria

 

  1. Judea

 

Therefore, it is important to look briefly at the overall political situation of the Jewish enclave as it was related to the Roman Empire.  The expanding Parthian Empire to the east was a constant threat to Roman stability.  Even though Rome conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C., by 40 B.C. the Parthians had taken temporary control of the Holy City.  But Herod the Great defeated both the Parthians and the Jewish freedom fighters and re-established Roman control in 37 B.C. Add to this political quandary the long history of Jewish rebellions, and there was sufficient reason for the temple leaders, as well as the Romans, to be concerned.  For this reason, the religious leaders and the Romans had established a delicately woven fabric of political collaboration to quickly resolve problems. The Jewish leaders convinced the Romans that the Miracle Worker from Nazareth needed to be executed.

Scholars debate upon are two possible locations concerning the location of the trials before Pilate.

 

  1. According to tradition, Pilate was stationed in the Antonio Fortress[4] that was located on the northwest side of the temple (see 15.04.04.A). This is the majority view and held herein.

 

  1. However, recently a few scholars have argued that Pilate was in Herod’s palace which was located on the western side of the city near today’s Jaffa Gate. This is a minority view, but is where Herod Antipas was for the second Roman trial of Jesus.

 

Both the Antonia Fortress and Herod’s palace had a suite where Pilate could comfortably reside. However, if Pilate was staying in the palace of the former Herod the Great, then when he decided to send Jesus to Herod Antipas, the Jews would have stayed and Herod would have come forth to consider their argument.

 

While the Antonio Fortress is the traditional site for the first and third trials of Jesus, that tradition alone is not sufficient “evidence” to assume it is the actual site.  Other traditional sites identified as the Mount of Transfiguration near Nazareth have long been discredited by scholars. Therefore, a closer examination is needed.

 

  1. Pilate generally lived in Judea’s capital city of Caesarea along the Mediterranean Sea, and came to Jerusalem only during festivals to insure peace. Therefore, he naturally would have stayed in the royal suite within the fortress where he had direct command of his troops.

 

  1. The Antonio Fortress was adjacent to the temple, and it was at the temple where tradition said anyone who wanted to be a messiah would announce his messiahship.

 

  1. When Jesus was before Pilate, He would have been before the “judgment seat.” That was almost always inside of a Praetorium. When the Apostle Paul appeared before Felix and Festus (Acts 23:31-25:12), it was before the “judgment seat.”

 

  1. Mathew said

 

Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into headquarters and gathered the whole company around Him.

 

Matthew 27:27

 

Some translations use the word “barracks” or “garrison” for “headquarters.” All these terms apply to a fortress.  By this time in Pilate’s career he had to maintain order or possibly lose his position. So it is highly doubtful that he would have sent a garrison of soldiers with Jesus to the western end of the city for a trial if all of the potential problems were expected to center around the temple area.

 

  1. When the Apostle Paul was speaking to the crowds near the temple, he was rescued from a Jewish mob by Roman soldiers and taken into the nearby “barracks,” (Acts 21:37). This would have been the same place where Jesus was tried by Pilate.

 

Therefore, it simply makes common sense that Pilate was in the Antonio Fortress, and it was there where Jesus stood before him. Therefore, in addition to the physical abuse Jesus endured during the Jewish and Roman trials, soldiers probably made him walk from the Antonio Fortress to Herod’s palace on the western side of the city by the Jaffa Gate, and back again.

 

As to Herod’s palace, it was constructed by his father Herod the Great and now most likely occupied occasionally by Herod Antipas when he was in the area.  Generally, Herod Antipas was either in Tiberias or in the Machaerus Fortress, east of the Dead Sea. The only reason he would have been in Jerusalem at Passover was to help maintain peace, even though the city was not part of his domain.

 

15.04.01.Q1 What were the Roman charges against Jesus?

 

In violation of Jewish law, the Sanhedrin conjured up sufficient false charges in an attempt to have Jesus convicted and executed.  In their haste, however, they realized that the charge of blasphemy was not sufficient grounds to execute anyone under Roman law.  So they restructured their charges to charge Him with treason – that is, tax evasion.  Furthermore, to be called “king of the Jews,” was a direct challenge to Roman authority.[5] Pilate could not avoid these charges. So Jesus was then taken from the religious court to the civil court.

 

When they arrived, Pilate was sitting in the judge’s seat; for Rome had given him supreme authority in the judicial system and enforcement of Roman law.  Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin came before him and charged Jesus with four counts of treason:

 

  1. They charged Him with sedition

 

  1. They said Jesus forbade the payment of taxes to Rome

 

  1. They said Jesus claimed to be king.

 

  1. Finally, there was an overarching rule known as lex de maiestate, meaning law of majesty, which forbade offending the emperor or empire.[6] Because it was interpreted in a broad manner, emperors such as Tiberius used it to remove or execute suspected enemies.

 

While the charge of treason could not be ignored, Pilate correctly realized that Jesus was the victim of a religious charade.  Pilate questioned Him carefully and realized that while claiming to be a king, He certainly was not a threat to Rome.  He could have released Jesus because not a single statute of Roman law was violated; however, eventually he yielded to the pressures of the Sanhedrin.[7]  The essential Roman laws that governed the trial were as follows:

 

  1. All proceedings had to be public and held during daylight hours.

 

  1. The trial started with the prosecuting witness presenting the charge that Jesus was guilty of treason. However, the problem the Sanhedrin had was that Judas was dead.

 

Shortly after sunrise on the morning of Passover, Jesus was taken before Pilate, possibly between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m.  Trials at this time did not have the formalities of modern Western judicial systems and, hence, decisions were rendered quickly.  Pilate was irritated that these pesty Jews were bothering him so early in the morning. Furthermore, he had to come out to meet them, because they refused to enter his royal court lest they would become defiled.  Therefore, the Jews had the following two strikes against them.

 

  1. Pilate was unhappy because they demanded his attention before the normal business day began and…

 

  1. The Jews asked him to step outside of his palace to address them.

 

Pilate and the Herodians knew all too well that Jesus did not have any political motivations. Both had a vast network of spies who scouted for any possible messianic revolutionaries.  Military commanders also made reports to their superiors which would have reached Pilate. All knew Jesus was innocent of the charges brought forth by the Sadducees.

 

 

15.04.01.Q2  Why might Pilate have been remotely concerned about the possibilities of Jesus being a revolutionary?

 

It is noteworthy to consider that the gospels provide only a small window of the events of the life of Jesus. For example, notice how often Jesus went to pray, and did so for lengthy periods of time, yet all the prayers recorded in Scripture are relatively short. Likewise in this matter. This question is hardly ever considered because Jesus had a well established reputation by this time. When the Sadducees drummed up all the charges they could, they probably included the following reasons as secondary evidence:

 

  1. One of His disciples was Simon, a former member of the Zealots.

 

  1. Jesus and all but one of His disciples were from the district of Galilee, an established center of Zealot activity.

 

  1. While Jesus taught peace, He also said there would be wars and rumors of wars. But He did not say when these would occur or His involvement in them.[8]

 

However, Jesus had been an incredibly popular figure for the previous three and a half years. The actions of a would-be revolutionary certainly did not fit His teaching or miracles. So while there were some concerns, they were muted by the well-established teachings and actions of Jesus and His disciples. Furthermore, the fact that at least one of the disciples (Peter) carried a small weapon may not have been a concern for Pilate.  Most men carried a small weapon for the same reasons men and boys carried pocket knives years ago in America.

[1]. For further study, see James C. McRuer, The Trial of Jesus. Toronto: Clarke Irwin Ltd. 1964.

 

[2]. See Appendix 21 for the seven proclamations of the innocence of Jesus.

 

[3]. Sanders. “Jesus in Historical Context.” 432.

[4]. Luke said in Acts 21:37 that the Apostle Paul was taken into the “barracks,” which was the Antonio Fortress. It was where Paul addressed the people in Acts 22:1-21.

[5]. Webb, “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus.” 754.

 

[6]. Lang, Know the Words of Jesus. 390.

 

[7]. Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. 473.

[8]. See Appendix 25 for a listing of rebels and false prophets who had messianic expectations and for a partial listing of revolts and social disturbances from 63 B.C. to A.D. 70.

 



15.04.02 FIRST ROMAN TRIAL: JESUS TAKEN BEFORE PILATE

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.04.02 FIRST ROMAN TRIAL: JESUS TAKEN BEFORE PILATE

15.04.02 Mt. 27:2; Jn. 18:28-30; Lk. 23:1-2; Jn. 18:28-32; Fourth Ministry Passover, April 30, in the Praetorium.

 

FIRST ROMAN TRIAL: JESUS TAKEN BEFORE PILATE  

 

Mt. 2 After tying Him up, they led Him away and handed Him over to Pilate, the governor.

 

Jn. 28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They did not enter the headquarters themselves; otherwise they would be defiled and unable to eat the Passover.

29 Then Pilate came out to them and said, “What charge do you bring against this man?”

30 They answered him, “If this man weren’t a criminal, we wouldn’t have handed Him over to you.”

 

Lk. 1 Then their whole assembly rose up and brought Him before Pilate. 2 They began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, opposing payment of taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is the Messiah, a King.”

Jn. 31 So Pilate told them, “Take Him yourselves and judge Him according to your law.”

It’s not legal for us to put anyone to death,” the Jews declared. 32 They said this so that Jesus’ words might be fulfilled signifying what kind of death He was going to die.

 

Throughout these two trials before Pilate, there were four identifiable procedural steps.

 

  1. Pilate had to know the accusation. The Jews said that if Jesus were not guilty, they would not have brought him. Caiaphas and his co-conspirators had assembled an angry mob that was so emotionally charged that they did not even realize their own sarcasm towards Pilate who could have had all of them crucified.

 

  1. Interrogation. Pilate asked the question, “Are you king of the Jews?” This was an interesting question, because the Jews had many self-proclaimed messiahs who desired to overthrow Roman tyranny.

 

  1. Defense. Since Jesus did not have an attorney to defend Him, Pilate spoke on His behalf to His accusers.

 

  1. The verdict. Pilate was one of the cruelest dictators of this era, yet he could find no fault in Jesus.

 

“Pilate, the governor.” The name “Pilate” or Pilatus was most fitting for the governor.  It comes from a Latin word that means armed with a javelin, a six-foot long throwing spear that had an iron point, a decisive weapon in combat.[1]   He was the sixth ruler of Judea, an appointment he received through the influence of his good friend Lucius Aelius Sejanus, who, like Pilate, was a friend of Caesar.[2] However, while Sejanus claimed to be a friend of Caesar, he was, in fact, an arch rival; a stealthy Judas.[3]

 

Traditional scholarship has said that Pilate, who was born in Spain, was authorized by Rome to be the official procurator cum potestate, meaning he had full rights in civil, criminal, and military jurisdictions. Some ancient writers, such as Josephus, referred to him as the procurator. However, in 1961 scholars discovered that this was an error, and that his proper title was “prefect.”[4] Therefore, it must be concluded that while titles were important, writers were somewhat loose with the proper use of them. Also, while Judea was in effect a part of a province of Syria, Pilate was personally responsible to the Emperor Tiberius, rather than to the Governor of Syria or the Roman Senate.  He was not only an extension of Rome, but also had ultimate Roman judicial authority, which included capital punishment (Latin: ius gladii)[5] for non-Roman citizens.[6]

 

15.04.02.A. THE PRAETORIAN GUARD (2)

15.04.02.A. THE PRAETORIAN GUARD. Two reliefs of the Praetorian Guard shown in Rome on whom the emperor relied for personal power and protection.  Jerusalem had a similar Praetorian Guard to protect Pilate and to crush any Jewish uprising.

 

Some scholars have concluded that Pilate was in Herod’s palace near the Jaffa Gate.  However, if these two men were at odds with each other, there is a slim possibility that they were under the same roof, especially when Pilate was needed by the temple. Therefore, it can be concluded that Pilate was in the Fortress and Herod in his palace, thereby requiring the Jews to march Jesus back and forth across the city in the early morning of Passover.

 

The Romans were primarily concerned about treason, potential riots, and rebellions which would obviously lead to the loss of tax revenue.  Therefore, when the Jews came before Pilate accusing Jesus of treason, he listened. The situation had now changed dramatically, primarily due to actions of Sejanus in Rome.[7] Furthermore, no longer was Jesus under Jewish law; He was now under Roman law (see 03.06.25 and 16.01.05).

 

The first Roman trial is believed to have taken place in the Praetorium Guard, located in the Fortress. It has been argued that the Guard was stationed only in Rome, and Paul was therefore, incorrect in his comments about them in Philippians 1:13 and 4:22.  However, recently scholars have discovered that the term “Caesar’s house,” as used by Paul had a much broader definition and included all those in government service. Hence, the word “Praetorium” can be applied to many locations outside of Rome, including Jerusalem. [8]

 

 

15.04.02.Q1. If capital punishment was illegal, how could the Jews have killed Stephen and James?

 

It has been argued that the Jews did, in fact, have the right to execute (Latin: ius gladii),[9] since they killed both Stephen and James.  First was the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60) and later, the stoning of James, the half-brother of Jesus in A.D. 62.  That account was recorded by Josephus.[10] However, these two deaths were caused by Sanhedrin-inspired riotous mobs and not by proper judicial procedure.  The priest who initiated the death of James was removed from office because he violated the law prohibiting capital punishment (Latin: ius gladii).[11] Amazingly, in later years, the documents of the Jerusalem Talmud recorded the following:

 

Forty years before the destruction of the temple they took from Israel the right to inflict capital punishment. 

 

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 1 18a

 

This Talmudic report is amazingly incorrect because Israel’s right to inflict capital punishment was removed decades earlier by Herod the Great, who also restricted the Sanhedrin to the area of Judah. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the restriction against capital punishment by the Sanhedrin was revoked by the Romans. These riots also underscore the tensions that existed and gave cause for the Romans to be ready at a moment’s notice to subdue an uprising.

 

It is unfortunate that historians are rather harsh on the Romans. In spite of all their faults, the Romans did attempt to accommodate their Jewish subjects. For example, while the authority to execute criminals was removed from the Sanhedrin, Rome did permit Jewish guards to execute any Gentile who entered the most holy sanctuary of the temple, even if he was a Roman soldier. This was confirmed by Josephus when he recorded a statement made by General Titus to the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem.  Titus said:

 

Did we not permit you to put to death any who passed it, even if he be a Roman?

 

Josephus, Wars 6.2.4 (126a)

 

Two other examples of Roman accommodation are:

 

  1. When Soldiers marched across Israel, the icon of the Tenth Roman Legion was either not visible or the soldiers bypassed Israel.

 

  1. Roman symbols were not placed in the temple as not to offend the Jews.

 

“Governor’s headquarters.”  Some translators have used the phrase, “hall of judgment,” which is translated from the Latin word Praetorium, which originally meant the general’s tent.[12]  However, the word praetorium can also be translated as villa or palace, the latter literally translated from praetoria.  Luke used it as follows:

He said, “I will give you a hearing whenever your accusers get here too.” And he ordered that he be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.

Acts 23:35

The Roman writer Juvenal used the phrase in this manner:

To their crimes they are indebted for their gardens, palaces (praetoria), etc.

Juvenal, Satire 1:75

By the first century, in Roman provinces the Praetorium was the official residence of the Roman governor while the term praetorian guard was the imperial bodyguard as in Philippians 1:13.[13]

“They did not enter the headquarters themselves.” When the Sadducees and their henchmen were before Pilate, they were in his open-air courtyard and not in the palace headquarter. Such places often had numerous statues of Roman heroes and gods, or “graven images,” which violated Jewish sensitivities. But since these Jews were not in the building, they did not consider themselves to be ceremonially defiled.[14]

 “Otherwise they would be defiled and unable to eat the Passover.”   The Priests observed their Passover at 9:00 o’clock in the morning. The Feast of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were weeklong celebrations,[15] for which the participants had to keep themselves ritually pure.  Therefore, they could not enter the home or facility of a Gentile.

 

“What charge do you bring against this man?”  Pilate was known for being cruel, but also followed Roman law in every detail. He presented this question to the Jews, but they had a problem. Their so-called witness who should have brought the charge was Judas, but he was now dead. Since the Sadducees had no “witness,” they were forced to make up their own charges.

 

“Criminal.”  The Greek term kakopoios or kakon poion, would be better translated as evildoer, or malefactor (Gk. kakourgos 2557).[16]  Yet these do not fully convey the meaning because the Latin maleficus (malefactor) point toward making evil with the use of magic.[17] Several church fathers, including Tertullian, also interpreted the biblical passage to read magic.[18]  In essence, the exorcisms and healings Jesus performed became the accusations used by the scribes, elders, and Sadducees.  At no point were any of the people present to whom Jesus ministered. The irony is that while pagan religious practices used numerous forms of magic as part of their healing rituals, some forms of magic were illegal.  And it may be for that reason, that the Sadducees  then claimed that Jesus was subverting “our” nation.

 

Previously, Pilate asked, “What kakon has he committed?”[19] To this the chief priests responded by saying, “He was doing kakon.” Words of common conversation tend to take on a significant importance in a court setting. Some scholars believe that this phrase carried more legal weight than what modern readers realize.[20]

 

Among the Romans, Jesus had the reputation of performing magic. So when Suetonius, the Roman historian, wrote of Nero, he said that “Christians” were involved with superstitionis novae ac maleficae.[21]  That is, a superstitious people involved in magic.  This may be why the first century church fathers specifically said in the Didache that magic was prohibited.[22] The church father Origen said that Celsus[23] said that Jesus went to Egypt for training in the magical arts.  The conclusion is that Jesus performed many miracles and exorcisms that the Jewish leadership and pagans referred to as “magic.” For that reason, the early church was adamant on,

 

  1. Declaring that the miracles Jesus performed were of God and a fulfillment of prophecies.

 

  1. Prohibiting the practice of magic.

 

No one denied that Jesus did wonderful works, but the primary argument was the source of His power. Where one believes that source came from clearly reflects what one thinks of Jesus.

 

We found this man subverting our nation.”  Since the Jews knew they could not convince Pilate to execute Jesus on charges of magic or blasphemy,[24] they formulated political charges equal to treason against Him.  In the process, they claimed the Roman Empire as “our nation,” and thereby, they rejected the Promised Land God had given them.  This was the same tactic used by them against Paul where religious charges in Acts 21:27-23:10  were changed to political ones in 24:5-6, and he was then accused before the Roman governor.

 

Opposing payment of taxes.”  Could Jesus have been accused of encouraging the Jews not to pay taxes?  Pilate knew that the Jews hated taxes and, in fact, this was the primary cause for many revolts.  The very last thing any Jew would do was to accuse another of failing to pay Roman taxes.  Pilate was also aware that the tax collectors were the most hated Jews.  Rabbis even permitted people to lie to tax collectors.  Amazingly, now the Sadducees were standing before Pilate, supposedly fearful that Rome might not obtain “its fair share” of tax revenue. Pilate most certainly must have been amused at their concern.  In essence, Jesus was accused of a crime against the sovereignty of the Empire: treason – which was punishable by crucifixion – but Pilate could easily see through the ridiculous accusation. Other reasons would soon emerge (next section below).

 

Take Him yourselves and judge Him according to your law.”  Pilate did not want to become involved with Jesus. He saw Him as a harmless figure in a religious group that he did not understand. While Pilate knew that the Jews had no authority to crucify, he most certainly did not think they would go so far as to kill one of their own, especially if he was innocent.

 

It’s not legal for us to put anyone to death.”  For once the Sadducees told the truth.  Their right to inflict capital punishment was removed from their authority by Herod the Great, with the exception of a Gentile who entered the sacred temple area.   

[1]. Macartney, Great Interviews of Jesus. 103; Dixon and Southern, The Roman Calvary. 51, 128; Maier, The First Easter. 56-58; Nelesen, Yeshua; the Promise, the Land, the Messiah. (Video Tape 2); Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament. 2:277.

[2]. Farrar, Life of Christ. 418; Bruce, New Testament History. 32-33; See also John 19:12; 03.06.25; 15.04.02; 16.01.05.

[3]. See 03.06.25, 16.01.05; Maier, “Judas, Pilate.” 10-13.

 

[4]. Maier, In the Fullness of Time. 346. A prefect was one who governed and, therefore, is sometimes referred to as a “governor.”

 

[5]. Barclay, “John.” 2:233.

 

[6]. Wilson, The False Trials. 84.

[7]. Webb, “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus.” 721-24.

 

[8]. Tenney, ed., “Praetorium.” 13:1654.

[9]. Barclay, “John.” 2:233.

 

[10]. Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1.

[11]. Barclay, “John.” 2:233.

 

[12]. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament. 2:272-73.

 

[13]. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament. 2:273.

 

[14]. Nelesen, Yeshua; the Promise, the Land, the Messiah. (Video Tape 2).

 

[15]. See Appendix 5.

 

[16]. Green, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; Vine, “Malefactor.” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary. 2:388.

 

[17]. Welch, “Miracles, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus.” 375.

 

[18]. Tertullian, Scorpiace  12;  Welch, “Miracles, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus.” 378.

 

[19]. Mt. 27:23; Mk. 15:14; Lk. 23:22.

 

[20]. Malina, “Jesus as Astral Prophet.” 93-98.

 

[21]. Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum 6.16.

 

[22]. Didache 2.2; 3.4 and 5.1.

 

[23]. Celsus was a second century Greek philosopher and fierce opponent of Christianity.

 

[24]. Welch, “Miracles, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus.” 375-79.

 



15.04.03 PILATE QUESTIONS JESUS

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.04.03 PILATE QUESTIONS JESUS

15.04.03 Jn. 18:33-38; Mt. 27:11-14 (See also Mk. 15:2-5; Lk. 23:3-4) First Roman Trial

 

PILATE QUESTIONS JESUS  

 

Jn. 33 Then Pilate went back into the headquarters, summoned Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

34 Jesus answered, “Are you asking this on your own, or have others told you about Me?”

35 “I’m not a Jew, am I?” Pilate replied. “Your own nation and the chief priests handed You over to me. What have You done?”

36 “My kingdom is not of this world,” said Jesus. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I wouldn’t be handed over to the Jews. As it is, My kingdom does not have its origin here.”

37 “You are a king then?” Pilate asked.

“You say that I’m a king,” Jesus replied. “I was born for this, and I have come into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.”

38 What is truth?” said Pilate.

After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no grounds for charging Him.

Mt. 11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. “Are You the King of the Jews?” the governor asked Him.

Jesus answered, “You have said it.” 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He didn’t answer.

13 Then Pilate said to Him, “Don’t You hear how much they are testifying against You?” 14 But He didn’t answer him on even one charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

 

“Are you the King of the Jews?” Again, Jesus was sarcastically asked to incriminate Himself.  He did not respond to Pilate in self-defense, but in a manner that would permit Pilate to act and judge as his office demanded. The Jews had been witness to many teachings and miracles of Jesus.  They heard Him preach on forgiveness, love, and all aspects of living a godly life. But Pilate did not have that privilege. Therefore, Jesus capsulated His ministry and messianic mission:

 

“My kingdom is not of this world,” said Jesus. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I wouldn’t be handed over to the Jews. As it is, My kingdom does not have its origin here.”

 John 18:36

 

Evidence to support this statement occurred when one of His disciples pulled out his sword and cut off the ear of Caiaphas’ servant.  Jesus rebuked the disciple and healed the servant.  To Pilate, Jesus was simply a man of wild illusions, one who desired to have a kingdom – possibly somewhere among the stars, since it was not to be in this world.  He considered Jesus a harmless lunatic who, by some mystical power, was able to heal the sick.  The Romans had a well-established reputation for a quick execution of any self-proclaimed messiah who dreamed of leading the Jews to independence.  Jesus, however, was different and after several questions, Pilate could find no reason for His execution.

 

“What is truth?”  This has been the eternal question throughout millennia. Greek philosophers, modern humanists, atheists, and others have debated this question. Scholars have asked whether this was an honest question or sarcasm. Regardless, from the moment Pilate asked this question, it was he who was on trial. He saw Jesus as an idealist who was harmless to the empire and, hence, certainly not worthy of death.  He knew Jesus was innocent but would he make a judgment that reflected truth? Knowing truth and acting upon it should have been one and the same. It wasn’t. Pilate was facing truth, but rendered a wrongful decision.

 

It is an interesting irony of history that Jesus was before Pilate, where He was questioned about being the King of the Jews, when some three and a half decades earlier the magi came to this same city to ask where the king of the Jews was born.  Now Jesus was on trial for being the king and only Pilate could officiate over this matter.  This is the first Roman declaration of innocence.  He then sent Jesus to Herod Antipas for trial, because he did not have the courage to release Jesus.

 

But He didn’t answer him.”  This was not only a fulfillment of prophecy and a position of humility, but also a condemnation of Pilate. The silence of Jesus speaks volumes to the fact that it was not Jesus, but Pilate who was on trial. In centuries past, the first king of Israel, Saul, had parted ways from God.  In response Saul said, “God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or dreams” (1 Sam. 28:15).  As the Holy One was silent before King Saul, Jesus was silent before His accusers.

15.04.03a

Pilate normally lived in Caesarea Maritima along the Mediterranean coast.  But during the days of Passover, he was in Jerusalem with extra soldiers in the event that some radical would announce he was the Messiah. Scholars now debate whether he resided in Herod’s palace by the Jaffa Gate or in the luxury suite in the palace of the Antonia Fortress.

 

 

15.04.03.A. JOHN RYLANDS FRAGMENT

15.04.03.A. JOHN RYLANDS FRAGMENT.  A papyrus fragment, commonly known as Papyrus 52, containing John 18:31-33 and 18:37-38 is believed to have been written between the middle and end of the first century.  It is located in the John Ryland Library in Manchester, England. It is the oldest known manuscript New Testament fragment.

 

The Ryland’s Fragment is incredible evidence that the gospel of John is not a second or third century creation, as some critics claim but of the early second century.  Its significance, as well as others,[1] is positive proof that the gospels were written at an early date; proof that the gospels were transcribed accurately for two thousand years to the translations available today. Some scholars have concluded that the earliest edition of Matthew existed somewhere between A.D. 30 and 60, indicating it was written within a few decades of the death of Jesus, but before the destruction of the temple.[2]

 

Others believe this fragment to be dated between A.D. 70 and 125, which is still quite early.  This is significant in that it provides overwhelming support that many stories of miracles were, in fact, historical events and not myths added to the text by later editors, as some critics claim (without support for their opinions).  With so many early copies of this gospel circulating in the ancient Middle East, it would have been impossible to create legends and myths concerning Jesus that would have been accepted by the Church.

 

It is important to summarize the charges the Sanhedrin brought against Jesus when before Pilate.  Any one of these was worthy of crucifixion.

 

  1. Jesus was a criminal who used magical powers

 

  1. Jesus attempted to subvert the nation

 

  1. He forbade the payment of taxes to Rome

 

  1. He claimed He was king, a position superior to Pilate.

 

In summary, Pilate was by no means the ideal administrator of the Roman Empire.  He is remembered for his cruelty, yet he could see through the accusations of the Jewish leaders, and considered Jesus to be innocent. But he did not have the inner strength to stand in opposition to the Jews and administer fair justice.

[1]. For other listings of ancient papyri pertaining to the New Testament, see The Biblical Expositor. 8-12 and Packer, Tenney, and White, eds., The Bible Almanac. 65-84.

 

[2]. Theide and D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus. 163.



15.04.04 PILATE SENDS JESUS TO HEROD

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.04.04 PILATE SENDS JESUS TO HEROD

15.04.04  Lk. 23:5-7

 

PILATE SENDS JESUS TO HEROD  

 

5 But they kept insisting, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where He started even to here.”

6 When Pilate heard this, he asked if the man was a Galilean. 7 Finding that He was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem during those days.

 

 

15.04.04.A. A MODEL OF THE ANTONIA FORTRESS (Behind the Temple)

15.04.04.A. A MODEL OF THE ANTONIA FORTRESS (Behind the Temple).  This model shows the proximity of the fortress (in background) to the temple, and is where scholars believe Jesus was tried before Pilate. The fortress had a palace-type luxury suite for Pilate, barracks for the Praetorian Guard, a prison, and even a place where the high priest kept his priceless priestly robes. The Sanhedrin held its judicial proceedings in the Chamber of Hewn Stone within the temple, under the watchful eyes of the Roman guards. Photographed at the Holy Land Hotel by the author.

 
15.04.04.B. THE ROBES OF THE HIGH PRIEST (2)                 15.04.04.B. THE ROBES OF THE HIGH PRIEST (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15.04.04.B. THE ROBES OF THE HIGH PRIEST.  LEFT: A mannequin of the high priest dressed in one of his priestly robes as he may have appeared during temple service. Photo courtesy of the Bible History Exhibits and Stephen Meyers. RIGHT: A model displays a recreated priestly robe as he may have appeared in daily life. Photo by the author near the Southern Temple Steps.

 

While performing temple duties, the high priest wore a linen garment and turban, but was in bare feet. His official dress was worn only in the temple, and kept under guard in the Antonia Fortress in the years 6-41 when not in service.[1]

[1]. Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ. 1:91.

 



15.04.05 JESUS BEFORE HEROD ANTIPAS

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 21, 2015  -  Comments Off on 15.04.05 JESUS BEFORE HEROD ANTIPAS

15.04.05  Lk. 23:8-12, The palace of Herod; Second Roman Trial

 

JESUS BEFORE HEROD ANTIPAS  

 

8 Herod was very glad to see Jesus; for a long time he had wanted to see Him because he had heard about Him and was hoping to see some miracle performed by Him. 9 So he kept asking Him questions, but Jesus did not answer him. 10 The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing Him. 11 Then Herod, with his soldiers, treated Him with contempt, mocked Him, dressed Him in a brilliant robe, and sent Him back to Pilate. 12 That very day Herod and Pilate became friends. Previously, they had been hostile toward each other.

 

There was no legal reason for Pilate to send Jesus to Herod Antipas, since Pilate was in the superior government position.[1] He simply did not want to take responsibility for a decision.  However, this may have been an attempt to appease Herod, because Pilate was responsible for the Galilean massacre in Jerusalem (Lk. 13:1).  Technically, the massacre was an infringement upon Herod’s domain, even though the incident occurred in Jerusalem.[2] Nonetheless, Pilate most certainly was delighted to send Jesus to Herod Antipas, governor of the province of Galilee.  This northern area was a traditional problem, for it was the home of the Zealots.  Herod was always quick to remove any insurrectionist that appeared and, in Pilate’s thinking, he was well equipped to handle Jesus and any other Jewish problem.

 

The reputation of Jesus had spread into every corner of the ancient Middle East.  Herod Antipas had at one time listened carefully to John the Baptist (Lk. 3:19-20).  When the twelve disciples were preaching, He was gravely concerned (Lk. 9:7-9) and even searched for an opportunity to kill Jesus. But friendly Pharisees warned Jesus of imminent danger at which time Jesus referred to him as the “fox” (Lk. 13:31-35).  Now Herod had his fourth encounter with Jesus. Evidently, he pretended to have some interest in the ways of God.  His life had deteriorated spiritually and morally and his only interest was some form of entertainment, miracles, or sideshow.  Jesus, however, did not consent. In fact, the entire courtroom mocked Jesus and, sarcastically, gave Him all appearances of a king. When they were finished with Him, He was sent back to Pilate.  However, Herod’s refusal to pronounce a sentence of any kind strongly suggests that he considered Jesus innocent.

 

 

But the questions persist.  Why did Herod Antipas, who once tried to kill Jesus, now find Him innocent?  Was this declaration of innocence truly the result of Herod’s concern for judicial equality, or did some people of his household, who had supported Jesus financially, have an influence on his decision?

 

  1. There was Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward who became a follower of Jesus (Lk. 8:3)

 

  1. Manaen became a believer and was a member of Herod’s court (Acts 13:1). No doubt, there were others as well.

 

Since Herod’s decision appears to be out of character, one must suspect that these and other believers, who served in the royal household, demonstrated their influence to find Jesus innocent. He had no interest in justice, but only wanted to be entertained. When that attempt failed, he returned Jesus to Pilate.

 

That very day Herod and Pilate became friends. Previously, they had been hostile toward each other.” There are few verses in the Bible that imply political alliances as much as this one. In ancient times, as today, the world of politics can demand strange alliances even among those who despise each other.  Such was the case here. For years there had been a peaceful hatred between Pilate and Herod Antipas.  However, neither could be vocal about the issue or Rome would have removed the accuser from office. Now, before them was a man whom neither of them found to be guilty.  There is no recorded information as to why Pilate and Herod were hostile with each other, but previously there was at least one event initiated by Pilate that might have been the cause.

 

As has already been stated, scholars have long suspected that the hostilities between the two leaders resulted from a massacre in Jerusalem (Lk. 13:1) after Pilate raided the temple treasury to pay for an aqueduct that was under construction.[3]  Justification for this opinion is based, in part, on the fact that in A.D. 36, Pilate was ordered to Rome by Vitellius, the legate of Syria, to defend similar actions concerning a Samaritan rebellion.  In that case, he imprisoned and then slaughtered Samaritan rebels. However, by the time he arrived in Rome, Emperor Tiberius had died.

 

History is inconclusive as to what became of Pilate. Eusebius said that he was exiled and then committed suicide,[4] although another account says he suffered death under Emperor Nero. Regardless, his final hours were not peaceful.[5]

[1]. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. 9.

[2]. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. 31.

[3]. More information, including a quotation from Josephus, is found at 09.03.08.

 

[4]. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. 2.7.

 

[5]. See 16.01.06.Q1 concerning the consequences that fell upon those who opposed Jesus.

 



  • Chapters