Jesus Arrested To Annas then Caiaphas (22 h 2 abr 33 ano – 23 h 55 m, 2 abr 33 ano)

Descrição:

Herod the Great and Jesus Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence
Gérard GERTOUX

The arrest of Jesus shows two key points: the instigator of the arrest was the former high priest Annas (not Caiaphas) and the reason for arresting Jesus was sedition against the governing bodies of Judea (Jn 11:48) as proves the use of a military cohort (between 500 to 600 soldiers). Jesus had anticipated this serious charge and it is for this reason that he was able to respond to Pilate: if my kingdom were of this world, my men would have fought to prevent my being surrendered to the Jews (Jn 18:36). Indeed many believed that he could be an earthly king (Jn 6:15), even his disciples (Mt 19:11, Ac 1:6). To avoid any ambiguity about this significant matter Jesus explained to his disciples just before being arrested: When I sent you out without purse or haversack or sandals, were you short of anything? No, nothing: they said. He said to them,: But now if you have a purse, take it, and the same with a haversack; if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one, because I tell you these words of scripture are destined to be fulfilled in me: He was counted as one of the rebellious. Yes, what it says about me is even now reaching its fulfilment. They said: Lord, here are two swords. He said to them: That is enough! (Lk 22:35-38). According to the principle of legitimate self-defence, the Jews could use a sword because of brigandage (Jewish Antiquities XIV:63; XVIII:319-323), but the presence of these 2 swords (for 12 persons!) was primarily intended to illustrate the principle of Christian neutrality in armed struggles (2Co 10:4) and not the principle of self-defence, a key point that the apostle Peter (John 18:11) did not well understood: And suddenly, one of the followers of Jesus grasped his sword and drew it; he struck the high priest's servant and cut off his ear. Jesus then said: Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, who would promptly send more than twelve legions of angels to my defence? (Mt 26:52). This clear refusal to use weapons would allow Jesus to refute the charge of sedition.

During the arrest of Jesus, Judas led the troop of soldiers only as scout or guide because there was a military tribune called chiliarch, literally "Head of 1000", at their head (Jn 18:12). This tribune was Jewish because if he had been Roman, the chief priests would have asked permission from the Roman Prefect to lead the police operation. However Pilate was unaware of Jesus' existence at that time, as evidenced by his questions the next morning and his initial refusal to deal with this case (Lk 23:3-7, Jn 18:29). Consequently, the tribune and his troop had been made available to the Sanhedrin by King Herod Antipas (Mk 6:27), because the Temple police associated with the arrest of Jesus were probably made up of only 200 people (1Ch 9:22-30). Military terms used to designate soldiers were the same during the first century, either they were Jewish or Roman (Jewish Antiquities XVII:215). The number of soldiers to arrest Jesus seems high, between 500 and 600, but the Jewish authorities feared probably meeting strong opposition from the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, estimated at least to 120 people at that time (Ac 1:15). Jesus was initially led to Annas' home for questioning about his [seditious] teaching (Jn 18:12-19-24). This first step was not a trial but a preliminary investigation.

The first hearing (about sedition) was unsuccessful, then Jesus was led to Caiaphas for an official questioning before the Sanhedrin: The men who had arrested Jesus led him off to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. Peter followed him at a distance right to the high priest's palace, and he went in and sat down with the attendants to see what the end would be. The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus, however false, on which they might have him executed. But they could not find any, though several lying witnesses came forward. Eventually two came forward and made a statement: This man said "I have power to destroy the Temple of God and in three days build it up." The high priest then rose and said to him: Have you no answer to that? What is this evidence these men are bringing against you? But Jesus was silent (Mt 26:57- 63). The charge was relying on a possible desecration of the Temple (punishable by the death penalty according to Numbers 4:15), but given that the mentioned witnesses werecontradicting, it remained worthless, unless the accused admitted it. Caiaphas then proposed a new charge on the allegedly blasphemous words like "Christ, Son of God": And the high priest said to him: I put you on oath by the living God to tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered him: It is you who say it. But, I tell you that from this time onward you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven329. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said: He has blasphemed. What need of witnesses have we now? There! You have just heard the blasphemy. What is your opinion? They answered: He deserves to die (Mt 26:63-66). Jesus had already refuted this accusation the Jews considered blasphemous (Jn 10:31-36), if it was approved by the Sanhedrin he risked excommunication (Jn 9:22). The purpose of Caiaphas was to find a ground of charges involving the death penalty, so he was expecting that Jesus would use God's name in his defence that, according to rabbinic interpretation of the time, would have transformed the "blasphemous words (apostasy)" into "blasphemy", a crime punishable by stoning to death (Lv 24:16). According to the Jewish procedure, Caiaphas only used surrogates for the divine name such as: the "Blessed" or the "living God", to avoid being himself an accomplice of the blasphemy. The rest of the trial might suggest that the trap from the high priest had worked: Then the high priest tore his clothes and said: He has blasphemed. What need of witnesses have we now? There! You have just heard the blasphemy. What is your opinion? They answered: He deserves to die (Mt 26:64-66) but, contrary to appearances, the trap failed because although Jesus did acknowledge being God's son, he did not use God's name but only a surrogate (the Power). According to rabbinic interpretation, he had blasphemed against men claiming his divine sonship, but he had not blasphemed against God. This interpretation of blasphemy was controversial as is clear from the explanation of Philo: a new commandment was enacted, which had never before been thought worthy of being reduced to writing; but unexpected innovations cause new laws to be devised for the repression of their evils. At all events, the following law was immediately introduced: Whoever curses God shall be guilty of sin, and whoever names the name of the Lord shall die (...) in order that no one of the disciples of Moses may ever become accustomed at all to treat the appellation of God with disrespect; for that name is always most deserving to obtain the victory, and is especially worthy of love. But if any one were, I will not say to blaspheme against the Lord of gods and men, but were even to dare to utter his name unseasonably, he must endure the punishment of death (...) Therefore these men must not be thought worthy of pardon who out of volubility of tongue have spoken unseasonably, and being too free of their words have repeated carelessly the most holy and divine name of God (On the Life of Moses II:203-208).

Adicionado na linha do tempo:

Data: