The second error noted under Point X is that which relates to the
rending of garments by the high priest. "An ordinary Israelite could, as
an emblem of bereavement, tear his garments, but to the high priest it
was forbidden, because his vestments, being made after the express
orders of God, were figurative of his office."[300]
When Jesus confessed that He was Christ the Son of God, Caiaphas seems
to have lost his balance and to have committed errors with all the
rapidity of speech. "Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith,
What need we any further witnesses? ye have heard the blasphemy: what
think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."[301] In
this language and conduct of the son-in-law of Annas there were several
irregularities in procedure. The first was the rending of garments
reported by Matthew and Mark, which act was forbidden by the provisions
of the Mosaic Code, recorded in Leviticus and cited above.
But it is only fair to state the dissenting opinion on this point. In
the times of Christ it seems to have been the custom among the Jews to
rend the garments as a sign of horror and execration, whenever
blasphemous language was heard. Edersheim states the rule: "They all
heard it--and, as the law directed, when blasphemy was spoken, the high
priest rent both his outer and inner garment, with a rent that might
never be repaired."[302] The law here referred to, however, is the
Rabbinic or Talmudic and not the Mosaic law. It should be remembered
that the Mosaic Code was the constitution or fundamental law of the
ancient Hebrews. The Talmudic law embodied in the Mishna was, in a
sense, a mere commentary upon the Mosaic law. We have seen in Chapter I
of Part II of this volume that the traditional law was based upon,
derived from, and inspired by the written law contained in the
Pentateuch. It is true that the Talmud, while professing subordination
to the Pentateuch, finally virtually superseded it as an administrative
code. But the doctors never repealed a Mosaic injunction, since it was
an emanation of the mind of Jehovah and could not be abrogated by human
intelligence. When an ancient ordinance ceased to be of practical value
the Jewish legists simply declared that it had fallen into desuetude.
And whenever a new law was proclaimed to meet an emergency in the life
of the Hebrew people the Rabbins declared that it was derived from and
inspired by some decree which God had handed down to Moses for the
benefit of the nation. In other words, the Mosaic Code was Israel's
divine constitution which was to serve as a standard for all future
legislation. And as the Jewish lawmakers were not permitted to repeal a
Mosaic ordinance, neither were they allowed to establish a rule in
contravention of it. Now the Pentateuch forbade the rending of garments.
Then did the Talmudists have a right to declare that the law might be
changed or broken in the case of blasphemy? That they did is denied by
many writers.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account