Why didn't the Jews kill Jesus themselves?

Discussion in 'Bible Chat' started by פNIʞƎƎS, Jun 10, 2017.

  1. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    I was listening to a sermon that had to do with the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Something that stood out to me was that the Jews brought Jesus to the Roman Governor Pilate, in order to have Jesus exectuted because apparently they did not have the right to do it themselves.

    John 18:28-32
    28 Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. 29 Therefore Pilate went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” 30 They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” 31 So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” 32 to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die. - NASB

    It seems rather they didn't WANT to do the dirty work themselves, since they had previously tried to stone Jesus several times when He claimed to be God.
    John 8:58-59
    58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. - NASB
    John 10:30-32
    30 I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

    And of course we also know the story of how they killed Stephen by stoning him as well in Acts 7.

    So why did they not choose to kill Jesus this time around? They were sure kick to pick up rocks on previous times.
     
    BrianW likes this.
  2. Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard Life is not a problem to be solved Staff Member

    They had tried to kill him themselves, probably more times than we read about. It wasn't in God's plan, though, so it didn't happen. Their only other avenue was to appeal to the Romans, as they didn't have the legal right to try and execute Him themselves, so that's what they did, and that's what God's plan was. Had the Jews been able to kill Jesus, He would have been dead many times over.
     
  3. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    And not long after, Stephen was stoned by the Jews. Curious if there was any issue with the Romans after that.
     
  4. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    Yeah I believe ultimately Jesus was going to fulfill prophecy concerning the type of death He was going to suffer. I was just curious because they certainly tried many times, and now when they finally had Him at their mercy, as it may have appeared to them, they didn't go through with it.
     
  5. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    And there is also the story of the adulteress woman that I didn't bring up, since that portion of scripture is debatable as part of the original Gospel of John.
     
  6. Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard Life is not a problem to be solved Staff Member

    They never really had Him at their mercy, though. They were at His mercy: able to do only what they were allowed to do, and what they weren't allowed to do, they tried, and failed. It was illegal for them to kill (i.e. murder) Stephen, if that wasn't obvious.
     
  7. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    I know they never really had him at their mercy, but from their point of view, they never had a better opportunity.
    I'm not entirely convinced it was illegal. They had no problems stoning Stephen, and even Saul/Paul a Pharisee, at the time, was there giving his approval. And I don't see their were any consequences from Rome for that murder.

    At the end of the day I know God is in control and everything played itself according to His plan. I was just curious about the Pharisees saying they couldn't, when they did try previously.
     
  8. Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard Life is not a problem to be solved Staff Member

    Murdering a lone disciple (Stephen) is one thing, and murdering the leader of a movement is quite another. Typically, such leaders were killed by the Romans for sedition, because it really was illegal for the Jewish authorities to be killing anyone. Had Rome stepped in, it would galvanise Jewish, anti-Roman sympathies, at the risk of more rebellions. Better to leave the Jews killing each other, and turn a blind eye; when they're occupied with their religious disputes, they aren't killing Romans.

    To the Pharisees saying they couldn't, it's no different than publicly saying one thing, and privately doing another (hence, stirring up crowds to kill him, rather than doing it directly).
     
  9. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    That makes a lot of sense. Thanks brother.
     
  10. Cloudwalker

    Cloudwalker The genuine, original, one and only Cloudwalker Staff Member

    It was also prophesied in the OT that Christ would be hung on a tree, indicating he would be crucified. The Jew's only method of execution was stoning.
     
  11. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    Yes sir. I knew about the prophecy part. I guess ultimately that's the way it had to happen.
     
  12. devilslayer365

    devilslayer365 Wazzup?!

    If that portion of scripture isn't in the original text of John, who put it in there and why? Why specifically is it "debatable" as to whether or not it was originally in the Book of John?
     
  13. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    This is from the ESV Study Bible Notes:
    John 7:53–8:11 There is considerable doubt that this story is part of John’s original Gospel, for it is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. But there is nothing in it unworthy of sound doctrine. It seems best to view the story as something that probably happened during Jesus’ ministry but that was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel. Therefore it should not be considered as part of Scripture and should not be used as the basis for building any point of doctrine unless confirmed in Scripture.

    And this is from the NET Bible Notes:
    This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424 al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).
     
  14. devilslayer365

    devilslayer365 Wazzup?!

    So, what I'm getting, if I understand correctly from the commentary, is that, though the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman wasn't originally in John, it is a situation that likely did happen and was merely added in later, after John had been written?
     
  15. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    That seems to be the case.
     

Share This Page