 |  |
The death sentence had in effect been already passed upon the Lord by the Jews, and
they now sought the confirmation of Pilate, and consequent carrying out of that sentence
by the Roman power.
The death of Stephen has sometimes been quoted as demonstrating that the Sanhedrin
did have the power to carry out the sentence of death at this time, but what happened with
respect to this first Christian martyr was done in the heat of the moment, and is not to be
quoted against the plain words of John 18: 31 already referred to. The N.E.B.
translation portrays graphically what happened to Stephen in Acts 7: 57, 58:
"At this they gave a great shout and stopped their ears. Then they made one rush at
him and, flinging him out of the city, set about stoning him."
It may be remembered that there were times during the Lord's earthly ministry when a
similar thing could have happened, although confessedly not in connection with the
Sanhedrin. See for example John 8: 59 and 10: 31.
The Judgment.
"Ye have heard . . . . . but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council (Sanhedrin): but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire (lit. the Gehenna of fire)" (Matt. 5: 21, 22).
In the above passage three degrees of punishment are alluded to, pronounced by two
courts. "The Judgment" would represent the local synagogue "councils" (Matt. 10: 17
and Mark 13: 9), which decided lesser cases, but could pronounce the death sentence
by the honourable method of the sword, and ordain scourging (Matt. 23: 34) and
excommunication (John 9: 34). The Sanhedrin dealt with more serious offences, and had
the power to ordain death by the more ignominious stoning, and the further disgrace of
the Gehenna of fire, the end of a malefactor, whose corpse was denied a proper burial,
and was thrown out into the valley of Hinnom (outside Jerusalem), where it would be
devoured by worms, or the fires which were kept burning there constantly to keep down
pestilence. See Isa. 66: 24; Mark 9: 43-48.
The meaning of Matt. 5: 21, 22 will be considered in a consequent article; it is
enough for the moment to observe the constitution and authority of the judicial system in
Israel at this time. All matters, civil, political and religious, came under the jurisdiction
of these tribunals, which were intimately connected with the religion of Israel. Such a
system is, on paper at least, a Theocracy, and this Israel was intended to be. How far they
fell short of this in practice, to say nothing of the impossibility of running such a system
whilst under the Roman yoke, is evident to any reader of the Gospel narrative.
The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to His own people could have re-established that
Theocracy, but the prevailing attitude of the leaders of the people was, "we will not have
this man to rule over us". They rejected their King-Priest, both during the Gospel and
Acts period, and "the hope of Israel" was postponed to a future date, whilst the Lord