John Lightfoot on Matthew 26:3

[Assembled together unto the palace of the high priest.] Those ominous prodigies are very memorable, which are related by the Talmudists to have happened forty years before the destruction of the Temple.

"A tradition. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the western candle" (that is, the middlemost in the holy candlestick) "was put out. And the crimson tongue" (that was fastened to the horns of the scapegoat, or the doors of the Temple) "kept its redness. And the lot of the Lord" (for the goat that was to be offered up on the day of Expiation) "came out on the left hand. And the gates of the Temple, which were shut over night, were found open in the morning. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai said, 'Therefore, O Temple, wherefore dost thou trouble us? we know thy fate; namely, that thou art to be destroyed: for it is said, Open, O Lebanon, thy gates, that the flame may consume thy cedars.'" "A tradition. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, judgment in capital causes was taken away from Israel." "Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the council removed and sat in the sheds."

With these two last traditions lies our present business. What the Jews said, John 18:31, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, signifies the same thing with the tradition before us, "Judgments in capital causes are taken away from Israel." When were they first taken away? "Forty years before the destruction of the Temple," say the Talmudists: no doubt before the death of Christ; the words of the Jews imply so much. But how were they taken away? It is generally received by all that the Romans did so far divest the council of its authority, that it was not allowed by them to punish any with death; and this is gathered from those words of the Jews, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."

But if this, indeed, be true, 1. What do then those words of our Saviour mean, they will deliver you up to the councils? 2. How did they put Stephen to death? 3. Why was Paul so much afraid to commit himself to the council, that he chose rather to appeal to Caesar?

The Talmudists excellently well clear the matter: "What signifieth that tradition (say they) of the removal of the council forty years before the ruin of the Temple? Rabh Isaac Bar Abdimi saith, 'It signifieth thus much, that they did not judge of fines.'" And a little after; "But R. Nachman Bar Isaac saith, 'Do not say that it did not judge of fines, but that it did not judge in capital causes.' And the reason was this, because they saw murderers so much increase that they could not judge them. They said therefore, 'It is fit that we should remove from place to place, that so we may avoid the guilt.'" That is, the number and boldness of thieves and murderers growing so great that, by reason thereof, the authority of the council grew weak, and neither could nor dared put them to death. "It is better (say they) for us to remove from hence, out of this chamber Gazith, where, by the quality of the place, we are obliged to judge them, than that, by sitting still here, and not judging them, we should render ourselves guilty." Hence it is that neither in the highest nor in the inferior councils any one was punished with death. ("For they did not judge of capital matters in the inferior councils in any city, but only when the great council sat in the chamber Gazith," saith the Gloss.) The authority of them was not taken away by the Romans, but rather relinquished by themselves. The slothfulness of the council destroyed its own authority. Hear it justly upbraided in this matter: "The council which puts but one to death in seven years is called Destruction. R. Lazar Ben Azariah said, 'Which puts one to death in seventy years.' R. Tarphon and R. Akiba said, 'If we had been in the council' (when it judged of capital matters), 'there had none ever been put to death by it.' R. Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, 'These men have increased the number of murderers in Israel.'" Most certainly true, O Simeon! for by this means the power of the council came to be weakened in capital matters, because they, either by mere slothfulness, or by a foolish tenderness, or, as indeed the truth was, by a most fond estimation of an Israelite as an Israelite, they so far neglected to punish bloodshed and murder, and other crimes, till wickedness grew so untractable that the authority of the council trembled for fear of it, and dared not kill the killers. In this sense their saying must be understood, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: their authority of judging not being taken from them by the Romans, but lost by themselves, and despised by their people.

Notwithstanding it was not so lost, but that sometimes they exercised it; namely, when they observed they might do it safely and without danger. "Dat veniam corvis," &c spares crows, but vexeth pigeons. Thieves, murderers, and wicked men armed with force, they dared not call into their judgment; they were afraid of so desperate a crew: but to judge, condemn, torture, and put to death poor men and Christians, from whom they feared no such danger, they dreaded it not, they did not avoid it. They had been ready enough at condemning our Saviour himself to death if they had not feared the people, and if Providence had not otherwise determined of his death.

We may also, by the way, add that also which follows after the place above cited, In the day of Simeon Ben Jochai, judgments of pecuniary matters were taken away from Israel. In the same tract this is said to have been in "the days of Simeon Ben Shetah," long before Christ was born: but this is an error of the transcribers.

But now, if the Jewish council lost their power of judging in pecuniary causes by the same means as they lost it in capital, it must needs be that deceits, oppressions, and mutual injuries were grown so common and daring that they were let alone, as being above all punishment. The Babylonian Gemarists allege another reason; but whether it be only in favour of their nation, this is no fit place to examine.

That we may yet further confirm our opinion, that the authority of that council in capital matters was not taken away by the Romans, we will produce two stories, as clear examples of the thing we assert: one is this; "R. Lazar son of R. Zadok said, 'When I was a little boy, sitting on my father's shoulders, I saw a priest's daughter that had played the harlot compassed round with fagots and burnt.'" The council no doubt judging and condemning her, and this after Judea had then groaned many years under the Roman yoke; for that same R. Lazar saw the destruction of the city.

The other you have in the same tract, where they are speaking of the manner of pumping out evidence against a heretic and seducer of the people: "They place (say they) two witnesses in ambush, in the inner part of the house, and him in the outward, with a candle burning by him that they may see and hear him. Thus they dealt with Ben Satda in Lydda. They placed two disciples of the wise in ambush for him, and they brought him before the council, and stoned him." The Jews openly profess that this was done to him in the days of R. Akiba, long after the destruction of the city; and yet then, as you see, the council still retained its authority in judging of capital causes. They might do it for all the Romans, if they dared do it to the criminals.

But so much thus far concerning its authority: let us now speak of its present seat. "The council removed from the chamber Gazith to the sheds, from the sheds into Jerusalem, from Jerusalem to Jafne, from Jafne to Osha, from Osha to Shepharaama, from Shepharaama to Bethshaarim, from Bethshaarim to Tsippor, from Tsippor to Tiberias," &c. We conjecture that the great bench was driven from its seat, the chamber Gazith, half a year, or thereabout, before the death of Christ; but whether they sat then in the sheds [a place in the Court of the Gentiles] or in the city, when they debated about the death of Christ, does not clearly appear, since no authors make mention how long it sat either here or there. Those things that are mentioned in chapter 27:4-6, seem to argue that they sat in the Temple; these before us, that they sat in the city. Perhaps in both places; for it was not unusual with them to return thither, as occasion served, from whence they came; only to the chamber Gazith they never went back. Whence the Gloss upon the place lately cited, "They sat in Jafne in the days of Rabban Jochanan; in Osha, in the days of Rabban Gamaliel; for they returned from Osha to Jafne," &c. Thus the council, which was removed from Jerusalem to Jafne before the destruction of the city, returned thither at the feast, and sat as before. Hence Paul is brought before the council at Jerusalem when Jafne at that time was its proper seat. And hence Rabban Simeon, president of the council, was taken and killed in the siege of the city; and Rabban Jochanan his vice-president was very near it, both of them being drawn from Jafne to the city, with the rest of the bench, for observation of the Passover.

Whether the hall of the high priest were the ordinary receptacle for the council, or only in the present occasion, we do not here inquire. It is more material to inquire concerning the bench itself, and who sat president in judging. The president of the council at this time was Rabban Gamaliel, (Paul's master,) and the vice-president, Rabban Simeon his son, or Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai (which we do not dispute now). Whence therefore had the chief priest, here and in other places, the precedence and the chief voice in judging? For thus in Stephen's case the high priest is the chief of the inquisition, Acts 7:1; also in Paul's case, Acts 23:2, see also Acts 9:1. Had the priests a council and judgment seat of their own? or might they in the chief council, when the president was absent, hear causes of life and death? To this long question, and that enough perplexed, we reply these few things:

I. We confess, indeed, that the priests had a bench and council of their own, yet denying that there was a double council, one for ecclesiastical, the other for civil affairs, as some would have it.

We meet often with mention of the chamber of the counsellors, next the court...Concerning which thus the Babyl. Joma: "The tradition of R. Juda. What, was it the chamber of? Was it not the chamber of the counsellors? At first it was called the chamber of the counsellors: but when the high priesthood came to be bought with money, and changed yearly as the king's presidents are changed every year, from that time forward it was called the chamber of the presidents."

Hear the Glosser on this place: "The high priests were wicked, and did not fulfil their whole year; and he that succeeded the other changed this building and adorned it, that it might be called by his own name." Hear also the Gemara: "The first Temple stood four hundred and ten years, and there were not above eighteen priests under it. The second stood four hundred and twenty years, and there were more than three hundred under it. Take out forty years of Simeon the Just, eighty of Jochanan, ten of Ismael Ben Phabi, and eleven of Eleazar Ben Harsum, and there doth not remain one whole year to each of the rest."

Behold the chamber of the counsellors, properly so called, because the priests did meet and sit there not to judge, but to consult; and that only of things belonging to the Temple! Here they consulted, and took care that all persons and things belonging and necessary to the worship of God should be in readiness; that the buildings of the Temple and the courts should be kept in repair; and that the public Liturgy should be duly performed: but in the meantime they wanted all power of judging and punishing; they had not authority to fine, scourge, or put to death, yea, and in a word, to exercise any judgment; for by their own examination and authority they could not admit a candidate into the priesthood, but he was admitted by the authority of the council: "In the chamber Gazith sat the council of Israel, and held the examinations of priests: whosoever was not found fit was sent away in black clothes, and a black veil; whosoever was found fit was clothed in white, and had a white veil, and entered and ministered with his brethren the priests."

2. We meet also with mention of the council house of the priests. "The high priests made a decree, and did not permit an Israelite to carry the scapegoat into the wilderness." But in the Gloss, The council of the priests did not permit this. "The council of the priests exacted for the portion of a virgin four hundred zuzees, and the wise men did not hinder it."

First, This was that council of which we spoke before in the chamber of the counsellors. Secondly, That which was decreed by them concerning the carrying away of the scapegoat belonged merely to the service of the Temple, as being a caution about the right performance of the office in the day of atonement. Thirdly, and that about the portion of a virgin was nothing else but what any Israelite might do: and so the Gemarists confess; "If any noble family in Israel (say they) would do what the priests do, they may." The priests set a price upon their virgins, and decreed by common consent, that not less than such a portion should be required for them; which was lawful for all the Israelites to do for their virgins if they pleased.

3. There is an example brought of "Tobias a physician, who saw the new moon at Jerusalem, he and his son, and his servant whom he had freed. The priests admitted him and his son for witnesses, his servant they rejected: but when they came before the bench, they admitted him and his servant, and rejected his son." Observe, 1. That the council is here opposed to the priests. 2. That it belonged to the council to determine of the new moon, because on that depended the set times of the feasts: this is plain enough in the chapter cited. 3. That what the priests did was matter of examination only, not decree.

4. "The elders of the city (Deut 22:18) are the triumvirate bench": 'at the gate' (v 24) means the bench of the chief priest. The matter there in debate is about a married woman, who is found by her husband to have lost her virginity, and is therefore to be put to death: Deuteronomy 22:13, &c. In that passage, among other things, you may find these words, verse 18: "And the elders of that city shall lay hold of that man and scourge him." The Gemarists take occasion from thence to define what the phrase there and in other places means, "The elders of the city": and what is the meaning of the word gate, when it relates to the bench: "That (say they) signifies the triumvirate bench: this the bench or council of the high priest": that is, unless I be very much mistaken, every council of twenty-three; which is clear enough both from the place mentioned and from reason itself:

1. The words of the place quoted are these: "R. Bon Bar Chaija inquired before R. Zeira, What if the father [of the virgin] should produce witnesses which invalidate the testimony of the husband's witnesses? if the father's witnesses are proved false, he must be whipped, and pay a hundred selaim in the triumvirate court; but the witnesses are to be stoned by the bench of the twenty-three, &c. R. Zeira thought that this was a double judgment: but R. Jeremias, in the name of R. Abhu, that it was but a single one: but the tradition contradicts R. Abhu; for To the elders of the city, verse 5, is, To the triumvirate-bench, but at the gate, means the bench of the high priest." It is plain, that the bench of the high priest is put in opposition to the triumvirate bench; and, by consequence, that it is either the chief council, or the council of the twenty-three, or some other council of the priests, distinct from all these. But it cannot be this third, because the place cited in the Talmudists, and the place in the law cited by the Talmudists, plainly speak of such a council, which had power of judging in capital causes. But they that suppose the ecclesiastical council among the Jews to have been distinct from the civil, scarce suppose that that council sat on capital causes, or passed sentence of death; much less is it to be thought that that council sat only on life and death; which certainly ought to be supposed from the place quoted, if the council of the high priest did strictly signify such a council of priests. Let us illustrate the Talmudical words with a paraphrase: R. Zeira thought, that that cause of a husband accusing his wife for the loss of her virginity belonged to the judgment of two benches; namely, of the triumvirate, which inflicted whipping and pecuniary mulcts; and of the 'twenty-three,' which adjudged to death; but Rabbi Abhu thinks it is to be referred to the judgment of one bench only. But you are mistaken, good Rabbi Abhu; and the very phrase made use of in this case refutes you; for the expression which is brought in, "To the elders of the city," signifies the triumviral bench; and the phrase, "at the gate," signifies the bench of twenty-three; for the chief council never at in the gate.

2. Now the council of twenty-three is called by the Talmudists the bench, or the council of the chief priest, alluding to the words of the lawgiver, Deuteronomy 17:9, where the word priests denotes the inferior councils, and judge the chief council.

II. In the chief council, the president sat in the highest seat, (being at this time, when Christ was under examination, Rabban Gamaliel, as we said); but the high priest excelled him in dignity everywhere: for the president of the council was chosen not so much for his quality, as for his learning and skill in traditions. He was (a phrase very much used by the author of Juchasin, applied to presidents), that is, keeper, father, and deliver of traditions; and he was chosen to this office, who was fittest for these things. Memorable is the story of Hillel's coming to the presidentship, being preferred to the chair for this only thing, because he solved some doubts about the Passover, having learned it, as he saith himself, from Shemaiah and Abtalion. We will not think it much to transcribe the story: "The sons of Betira once forgot a tradition: for when the fourteenth day [on which the Passover was to be celebrated] fell out on the sabbath, they could not tell whether the Passover should take place of the sabbath or no. But they said, There is here a certain Babylonian, Hillel by name, who was brought up under Shemaiah and Abtalion; he can resolve us whether the Passover should take place of the sabbath or no. They sent therefore for him, and said to him, 'Have you ever heard in your life, [that is, have you received any tradition,] whether, when the fourteenth day falls on the sabbath, the Passover should take place of the sabbath or no?' He answered, 'Have we but one Passover that takes place of the sabbath yearly? or are there not many Passovers that put by the sabbath yearly? namely, the continual sacrifice.' He proved this by arguments a pari, from the equality of it, from the less to the greater, &c. But they did not admit of this from him, till he said, 'May it thus and thus happen to me, if I did not hear this of Shemaiah and Abtalion.' When they hear this they immediately submitted, and promoted him to the presidentship," &c.

It belonged to the president chiefly to sum up the votes of the elders, to determine of a tradition, to preserve it, and transmit it to posterity; and, these things excepted, you will scarce observe any thing peculiar to him in judging which was not common to all the rest. Nothing therefore hindered but that the high priest and the other priests (while he excelled in quality, and they in number) might promote acts in the council above the rest, and pursue them with the greatest vigour; but especially when the business before them was about the sum of religion, as it was here, and in the examples alleged of Paul and Stephen. It was lawful for them, to whose office it peculiarly belonged to take care of scared things, to show more officious diligence in matters where these were concerned than other men, that they might provide for their fame among men, and the good of their places. The council, indeed, might consist of Israelites only, without either Levites or priests, in case such could not be found fit: "Thus it is commanded that in the great council there should be Levites and priests; but if such are not to be found, and the council consists of other Israelites only, it is lawful." But such a scarcity of priests and Levites is only supposed, was never found; they were always a great part, if not the greatest, of the council. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai, the priest, was either now vice-president of the council, or next to him. Priests were everywhere in such esteem with the people and with the council, and the dignity and veneration of the high priest was so great, that it is no wonder if you find him and them always the chief actors, and the principal part in that great assembly.