The Expositor's Bible: The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2Stokes, George Thomas
Religion
The Expositor's Bible: The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2
Stokes, George Thomas
Bible. Acts -- Commentaries; Bible. Acts -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
[25] I know it is a common opinion that the Jews had no power of
capital punishment and that the Romans permitted the infliction
merely of scourgings and such minor penalties. Lightfoot, in his
_Horæ Hebraicæ_ on Matt. xxvi. 3; John xviii. 31; Acts ix. 2,
controverts this view in long and learned notes. The Jews
certainly stated to Pilate, according to John xviii. 31, "It is
not lawful for us to put any man to death." But then, on the other
hand, the Sanhedrin put St. Stephen to death, and St. Paul tells
us that when the saints were put to death he voted against them;
showing that the Sanhedrin did put many of the disciples to death.
Lightfoot thinks that the Jews merely wished to throw the odium of
our Lord's execution upon the Romans, and therefore pleaded their
own inability to condemn Him for a capital offence, because of the
particular chamber where the Sanhedrin then sat, where it was
unlawful to judge a capital crime. The Pharisees, too, joined in
the attempt to bring about our Lord's death, and their traditions
made them averse to the shedding of Jewish blood by the Sanhedrin.
The Sadducees were, however, the dominant party in the year 37,
and they had no such scruples. They were always of a cruel and
bloodthirsty disposition and stern in their punishments, as
Josephus tells us in his _Antiqq._, XX., ix., 1. This was of
course the natural result of their material philosophy which
regarded man as devoid of any immortal principle. Lightfoot gives
instances too (Matt. xxvi. 3) of a priest's daughter burned to
death and of a man stoned at Lydda even after the destruction of
the city, showing that the Sanhedrin still contrived to exercise
capital jurisdiction. The time when Saul set out for Damascus was
very favourable from political reasons for any new or unusual
assumptions of authority on the part of the Sanhedrin. Vitellius
the Prefect was very anxious to be deferential in every way to the
Jewish authorities. He had just restored the custody of the high
priest's robes to the Sanhedrin and the priests. This may have
encouraged them to adopt the fiercest and sternest measures
against the new sectaries. As for the minor punishment of
flogging, the synagogues in Holland have been known to exercise it
so lately as the seventeenth century.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account