The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$thread_modes - Line: 46 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code 46 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1617 eval




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Executive power 2000 years ago
#1
There is a question that I've been asking myself for a long time. I hesitated to ask it here, because some of you could feel attacked since some Christians accuse Jews to be responsible for the death of Jesus. But I don't see it that way (I believe that it was His mission to come and die. So someone had to do it).

Here is my question: In the times of Jesus the people of Israel weren't allowed to kill (John 18:31) and therefore Jesus was handed over to the Romans. A little later, when Stephen appeared on the screen, the people stoned him. (Acts 7:58-60).  What do you think, why was it not allowed in one case and allowed in the other?
Reply
#2
Bluebird,

Good question.

First I'd like to make a clarification if I may.

If I am correct, we are commanded not to murder, it doesn't say not to kill. Obviously there are several times in the Hebrew bible where killing is seen as justified. But not murder.

As far as what is written in the Christian bible, I would say, and it is my opinion, we can't be sure of exactly what did take place.
There was most certainly a Jewish court that could use the death penalty, but it was rare and quite difficult to do so.

Also, if Jesus was just claiming to be a messiah, that wouldn't necessarily be considered a crime punishable by death if I'm not mistaken.

As far as Stephen is concerned, again, I'm not convinced everything happened as written but even so, weren't there instances in the Hebrew bible of stonings?
Reply
#3
(04-26-2021, 07:20 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Bluebird,

Good question.

First I'd like to make a clarification if I may.

If I am correct, we are commanded not to murder, it doesn't say not to kill. Obviously there are several times in the Hebrew bible where killing is seen as justified. But not murder.

As far as what is written in the Christian bible, I would say, and it is my opinion, we can't be sure of exactly what did take place.
There was most certainly a Jewish court that could use the death penalty, but it was rare and quite difficult to do so.

Also, if Jesus was just claiming to be a messiah, that wouldn't necessarily be considered a crime punishable by death if I'm not mistaken.

As far as Stephen is concerned, again, I'm not convinced everything happened as written but even so, weren't there instances in the Hebrew bible of stonings?

Thank you for your thoughts.

When I read my question, I see that it isn't specific enough. As I understand it, the people of Israel had their freedoms but were under Roman law somehow. Until now I was pretty sure that the people coudn't kill Jesus because the Romens didn't allow that. In this context it isn't interesting for me how the Jews made their judgement.

When Stephen was stoned, the Romans were still in power. So why did the Romans allow the people of Israel to kill Stephen while it was forbidden before to put Jesus to death?
Reply
#4
The NT makes the claim that the Jews didn't have capital authority. That in order to have Jesus legally killed, they had to turn him over to the Romans. I'm not sure what the situation was like at that time. It's a question to look into.
Reply
#5
(04-26-2021, 09:12 PM)Blue Bird Wrote: Thank you for your thoughts.

When I read my question, I see that it isn't specific enough. As I understand it, the people of Israel had their freedoms but were under Roman law somehow. Until now I was pretty sure that the people couldn't kill Jesus because the Romans didn't allow that. In this context it isn't interesting for me how the Jews made their judgement.

When Stephen was stoned, the Romans were still in power. So why did the Romans allow the people of Israel to kill Stephen while it was forbidden before to put Jesus to death?

Well, that still is a good question, not sure you'll ever receive the correct answer.

Unless of course someone has a way to ask the Romans who were there at the time.

Sounds like a question Christians may be able to better answer than the Jewish people who don't really have record of most of the things that happened in the Christian bible.

Or maybe someone else here on the forum can state their thoughts.
Reply
#6
(04-26-2021, 06:54 PM)Blue Bird Wrote: In the times of Jesus the people of Israel weren't allowed to kill (John 18:31) and therefore Jesus was handed over to the Romans.
(04-26-2021, 09:16 PM)Jason Wrote: The NT makes the claim that the Jews didn't have capital authority. ... It's a question to look into.

The gospel of John, which is not a good historical source, is actually ambiguous on this point. Contrary to Jn 18,31, see Jn 19,6: 

Quote:When the chief priests and the [temple] police saw him, they shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him.”

Jesus was most likely executed by Pilate for a seditious anti-Roman claim to be the 'King of the Judeans', a royal title which could only be granted by the Emperor and the Roman Senate. 'King of the Judeans' is nowhere else used in the Christian scriptures as a title for Jesus. Thus, it may be historical rather than a later Christian invention. If any members of the Jerusalem sunedrion were also involved in bringing charges to Pilate against Jesus, they were no doubt acting in good faith, rightly believing that Jesus' political, anti-Roman claim was not only foolhardy but dangerous to the Jewish people. According to Josephus, the Romans instituted the role of the sunedrion to be a local aristocratic replacement for dynasties, 'though at times they would only function as a body that limited a king's authority. Thus it was the natural role of a sunedrion to oppose any royal (ie, messianic) claims.

Pilate normally resided in Caesarea, but came to Jerusalem with additional troops for the Passover crowds. When Pilate was not around, I would not be surprised if the Roman-established sunedrion exercised their own Roman-appointed authority with greater freedom when Pilate was not around. There are those who argue that the Judean authorities otherwise retained the ordinary power of capital punishment, or at least exercised it, as they had previously* and reportedly would also do at later times.** I by no means deny Pilate’s decisive role in the crucifixion, but it seems Caiaphas ordinarily ruled in lock-step with the policies of Pilate, who in turn allowed Caiaphas more or less free reign to administer the temple as he saw fit during this period, yet always with the real threat of Roman imperial desecration.

*See Josephus, Antiquities 13,380 (13,14,2) who claims that during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), the Hasmonean king, ordered the crucifixion of 800 Pharisees, before whose eyes their wives and children were also executed. 

**See the 3rd-century claim of Origen in his letter to Julius Africanus (§20).
Reply
#7
(04-26-2021, 06:54 PM)Blue Bird Wrote: There is a question that I've been asking myself for a long time. I hesitated to ask it here, because some of you could feel attacked since some Christians accuse Jews to be responsible for the death of Jesus. But I don't see it that way (I believe that it was His mission to come and die. So someone had to do it).

Here is my question: In the times of Jesus the people of Israel weren't allowed to kill (John 18:31) and therefore Jesus was handed over to the Romans. A little later, when Stephen appeared on the screen, the people stoned him. (Acts 7:58-60).  What do you think, why was it not allowed in one case and allowed in the other?
You can find informations about that in biblical commentaries.
Reply
#8
(04-26-2021, 09:16 PM)Jason Wrote: The NT makes the claim that the Jews didn't have capital authority. That in order to have Jesus legally killed, they had to turn him over to the Romans. I'm not sure what the situation was like at that time. It's a question to look into.

That seems logical to me. The Stephen incident seems to be spontaneous, without a real trial. Maybe the Romans lost control sometimes (I heard that there were riots going on at that time). Nice to read from you again.
Reply
#9
(04-26-2021, 11:54 PM)robrecht Wrote:
(04-26-2021, 06:54 PM)Blue Bird Wrote: In the times of Jesus the people of Israel weren't allowed to kill (John 18:31) and therefore Jesus was handed over to the Romans.
(04-26-2021, 09:16 PM)Jason Wrote: The NT makes the claim that the Jews didn't have capital authority. ... It's a question to look into.

The gospel of John, which is not a good historical source, is actually ambiguous on this point. Contrary to Jn 18,31, see Jn 19,6: 

Quote:When the chief priests and the [temple] police saw him, they shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him.”

Jesus was most likely executed by Pilate for a seditious anti-Roman claim to be the 'King of the Judeans', a royal title which could only be granted by the Emperor and the Roman Senate. 'King of the Judeans' is nowhere else used used in the Christian scriptures as a title for Jesus. Thus, it may be historical rather than a later Christian invention. If any members of the Jerusalem sunedrion were also involved in bringing charges to Pilate against Jesus, they were most likely acting in good faith, rightly believing that Jesus' political, anti-Roman claim was not only foolhardy but dangerous to the Jewish people. According to Josephus, the Romans instituted the role of the sunedrion to be a replacement for dynasties, 'though at times they would only function as a body that limited a king's authority. It was the natural role of a sunedrion to oppose any royal (ie, messianic) claims.

Pilate normally lived in Caesarea, but came to Jerusalem with additional troops for the Passover crowds. When Pilate was not around, I would not be surprised if the Roman-established sunedrion exercised their own Roman-appointed authority with greater freedom when Pilate was not around. There are those who argue that the Judean authorities otherwise retained the ordinary power of capital punishment, or at least exercised it, as they had previously* and reportedly would also do at later times.** I by no means deny Pilate’s decisive role in the crucifixion, but it seems Caiaphas ordinarily ruled in lock-step with the policies of Pilate, who in turn allowed Caiaphas more or less free reign to administer the temple as he saw fit during this period, yet always with the real threat of Roman imperial desecration.

*See Josephus, Antiquities 13,380 (13,14,2) who claims that during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), the Hasmonean king, ordered the crucifixion of 800 Pharisees, before whose eyes their wives and children were also executed. 

**See the 3rd-century claim of Origen in his letter to Julius Africanus (§20).

Thanks a lot for this detailed information! So it could well be that Stephen was stoned in accordance with Roman law because Pilate wasn't around. 

I saw the contrary to Jn 18,31 (Jn 19,6), too. After reading it a second time, I found out that Pilate said almost the same both times  

1.) Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law. (John 18:31) 

2.) You take him and crucify him. (John 19:6). - Could this also be a statement out of despairation because he had trouble to silence the masses?
Reply
#10
(04-26-2021, 11:35 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Well, that still is a good question

Thanks!

I'm not sure if I want to see the Romans and probably get crucified as well. 

My Christian friends don't know why Jesus had to be killed by the Romans but Stephen not. And I like to discuss it here because you people lived in Israel at that time and it is part of your history (even if you doubt some facts).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)