Lamartine put it, was the grave of the old world and the cradle of the new. Was the second a mere review of the first, or was the first a mere preliminary to the second. So the band and the chief captain and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and led him to Annas first;.
Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor.
HEBREW TRIAL
A vain testimony
A standing testimony
An “equal” or adequate testimony; or (perhaps) the testimony of them that agree together fa26 (ijsh marturia)
Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.”. In the trial of Jesus the only witnesses distinctly spoken to reported a particular utter trace of the accused. This is the original sense of the word, and it is that to which we have returned in modern days.
It stands in their law-books at the head of the enumeration of crimes as. And if this was the manner of a king, how should the King- Messiah be received when He claimed to be the Son of the Highest. Sonship — made seemingly in response to the grouping of the two ideas (Art thou “the Christ, the Son of God?”) by the High Priest himself — could never release a Hebrew tribunal from the duty of weighing a claim to Messiahship.
THE ROMAN TRIAL
When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you. Pilate therefore said unto them, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law. But the governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you.
And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews. And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him. Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.
ROMAN TRIAL
On the Roman side, the matter was of course precisely the reverse
Their view of the jurisdiction of subject races generally, and of the Jews in particular, was, I suspect, that it was just so much as they chose to leave them. The Roman governor sanctioned, or even himself administered, the old law of the region; but the policy of the ruling power was to concede to local self-government as much as possible. The concession was of course all the larger where there was no disposition on the part of the province to provoke a contest.
In Roman law as in Roman campaigns, in questions of jurisdiction as in questions of politics, the maxim of the haughty and wise rulers of the world was parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.
It is evident that a large latitude was allowed on this subject to the great Roman officers — proconsuls or procurators — who administered la haute
It was a sheer falsehood, and some of the accusers must have known it to be the converse of the fact as recently ascertained. It comes out in all the histories when He touches on the esoteric “mysteries of the kingdom”. He now, however, brings his prisoner within, and puts the sudden question, “Art thou the King of the Jews?”.
If thou sayest it of thyself, in the sense in which a Roman would naturally use the word, then I am not the King of the Jews. If they imply a confession of kingship, they express an avoidance of the particular kind of kingship charged. Herod’s declinature was prudent as well as courteous, when we remember the terms of the accusation.
The suggestion which is here made, that Pilate may have “believed in good faith that what he did was necessary for the preservation of the peace
Therefore, if and in so far as he believed in good faith and on reasonable grounds that what he did was necessary for the preservation of the peace of Palestine, he was right.”fb9. The suggestion which is here made, that Pilate may have “believed ingood faith that what he did was necessary for the preservation of the peace. What Pilate as administrator of the province might do in the way of deporting or even killing an innocent man for the sake of its peace, is one question.
In saying so, I do not forget the story of the English judge who told a prisoner, “I sentence you to die, not at all because you have robbed this house, but in order that other people may not rob other houses in future.” That judge, if he existed and pronounced such a sentence, simply committed murder. It was Caiaphas, not Pilate, who thought it expedient that one man should die for the people. Accordingly, the final defense made for the Roman governor — the onlyone which can be of any weight in consistency with the history, and the.
Accordingly, the final defense made for the Roman governor — the only one which can be of any weight in consistency with the history, and the
And it was plainly a position of matters very unfortunate for the application of the general rule suggested. But this brings us to the final question: What, in point of fact, was the law of Rome in the matter of the trial of Jesus Christ. These general considerations explain some of the variations in the Roman treatment of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
And this prerogative was held to form part of the majestas or supremacy of the State. As Trajan explains in his famous letter to the Governor of Bithynia,fb16 it was the duty of the higher magistrate to use a certain discretion in dealing with those who had transgressed the law on religion. We have found that it was a double trial, conducted with a certain regard to the forms of the two most famous jurisprudences of the world.
THE TRIAL OF CHRIST
FRANK JOHN POWELL
THE proceedings before the Jewish court and the Roman trial before Pilate, as related in the Gospels, is one which can be read in a few minutes, but to appreciate the significance of the incidents which occurred, the clash of personalities, the attitude of Jesus to His accusers and their accusations, and, above all, the reasons for His rejection by Israel, it is necessary to consider the historical. It is a study by one who would like to be regarded as a “common juryman” who has hearkened to the evidence, including that of experts — who have not always agreed — and has tried to arrive at a reasonable verdict. I hope that the many who have asked for a printed copy of the lectures will find this book to be an acceptable substitute and a useful introduction to a study of the subject.
CONTENTS
Procedure that was not followed — Rules for Consideration of Verdict — End of Illegal Trial and Condemnation — The Grand Consultation-The Decision — Summing Up. Reconstruction of Events — Roman Procurators — Pontius Pilate — Caesar’s Effigies in Jerusalem — The Acquaduct — Galileans Killed in Temple — Massacre of Samaritans — Pilate recalled to Rome — Legal Procedure in Rome and Provinces — The Praetorium — Jesus Before Pilate — What Accusation. The Charges — Roman Religious and Witchcraft Laws — Treason — Sedition — Tribute — The Interrogation — The Defense — The Interrupted Verdict — The Remission to Herod — Jesus before Herod — The Mocking — Pilate Resumes the Trial — The Second Acquittal — Barabbas — Pilate’s Wife — The Washing of Hands — The Third Acquittal — The Jewish Curse — Destruction of Jerusalem A.D.
70 — The Appeal of Titus — The Scourging — Behold the Man — The Son of God — Pilate Re- enters the Praetorium — Fiat Justitia Ruat Coelum — Pilate back on the Forum — Crucify Him — Pilate Yields — The Trial Ends. 30-70 — Albinus — Florus — The Jewish War — Certius Gallus — Vespasian — Battle of Jerusalem — Jerusalem — Jewish inspiration — Jewish Tradition — “ Literal” and “Spiritual”.
INTRODUCTION
In what Sabbatic period did you hear the accused use the Name?
In what year of the Sabbatic period?
In what month?
On what date of the month?
On what day of the week?
At what hour?
In what place?
If they erred in the matter the scribes of the Judges must put them in remembrance. But there was a more important question to be decided than the probable fate of the High Priest. To try to form an opinion as to the legality or otherwise of the Jewish.
Why was it that the Rulers of the Jews would not admit the Messiahship of Jesus in any circumstances whatever. It was only by yielding to the clamor of the Jews at the trial of Jesus that Pilate escaped an accusation that he himself was guilty of treason to Caesar. The impeacher then formally stated the name of the accused and the crime to be charged against him (nominis or criminis delatio).
It might be expressed in any one of the three forms — Not Guilty (absolvo), Guilty (condemno), or Doubtful (non liquet). It was only in cases in which such sentence of death was pronounced that the judgment required to be ratified by the authority of the procurator. The innuendo was that Jesus claimed to be a rival with Caesar for the allegiance of the people.
Jesus was not guilty of the accusations made against Him, and he would so rule. This was without doubt to be the end of the trial and it was to end in an acquittal. Instead, they saw One who appeared to be absolutely helpless in the hands of the Roman Governor.
It was during the time of Florus that the building of the Temple was finished. The Battle of Jerusalem began in the month of April, A.D. 70 just before the Feast of the Passover. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise.
