I’m continuing with this study of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

We noted previously that though the pagans did not have the letter of the Law, they followed the Law because the spirit of the Law was written on their hearts.  It was this spirit of the Law Jesus and Paul were interested in, because it was a foundation for all people, not just Jews.  In Romans 3 we read:

Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. Through what kind of law? That of works? No, rather through the law of faith. 28 For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also? Yes, of gentiles also, 30 since God is one, and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law through this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

One of Jesus’ main issues was getting behind the letter of the law to the spirit of the law.  A good example of this is the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus unveils the spirit of the tradition:

Jesus’ sayings in the form “You have heard that it was said … but I say to you…” appear in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21–48, NRSV Updated Edition). These six statements, known as the “antitheses,” contrast traditional interpretations of the Law with Jesus’ deeper teachings on righteousness.  Here they are quoted directly from the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE):

On Murder and Anger (Matthew 5:21–22)

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment…”

On Adultery and Lust (Matthew 5:27–28)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

On Divorce (Matthew 5:31–32)

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery…”

On Oaths (Matthew 5:33–34)

“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ But I say to you: Do not swear at all…”

On Retaliation (Matthew 5:38–39)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also…”

On Love for Enemies (Matthew 5:43–44)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”

These teachings emphasize internal attitudes and higher ethical standards, fulfilling rather than abolishing the Law (as stated in Matthew 5:17–20). The section concludes with the call to perfection in Matthew 5:48: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

What does this guard against?  In the account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13, NRSVUE), Satan (also called the devil) tempts Jesus three times. Only in the second temptation (the order varies slightly between Matthew and Luke) does Satan explicitly cite Scripture.  Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem and says: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,

to protect you,’

and

‘On their hands they will bear you up,

so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”

(Luke 4:9–11; similar in Matthew 4:5–6)

This is a direct quotation from Psalm 91:11–12 (NRSVUE): For he will command his angels concerning you

to guard you in all your ways.

On their hands they will bear you up,

so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.

Satan uses this verse to tempt Jesus to test God’s protection by jumping, forcing a miraculous intervention and proving His divine sonship in a spectacular, presumptuous way.  Jesus counters with another Scripture quotation:“It is said, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

(Luke 4:12; Matthew 4:7)

This comes from Deuteronomy 6:16 (NRSVUE): Do not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

Satan quotes Scripture accurately but misapplies it—taking it out of context to encourage presumption and disobedience. Psalm 91 promises God’s protection for those who trust Him, not a license to recklessly demand miracles. This illustrates how Scripture can be twisted to justify sin, while Jesus responds by properly applying Deuteronomy to reject testing God.  In the other two temptations (turning stones to bread and worshiping Satan for the kingdoms), Satan does not cite Scripture; Jesus responds each time with verses from Deuteronomy (8:3; 6:13).

The clearest example we have of this is the satire of Jesus’s trial before the Jewish high council where those experts of Jewish law and tradition conducting the trial transgress numerous laws and traditions while simultaneously finding numerous loophole to mitigate their transgressions.

Some scholars try to rescue the historicity of the account of Jesus’s trial in a manner that seems highly dubious. For instance, from John Hamilton we read:

However, the Synoptic chronology is not impossible, for as [Josef] Blinzler says, the prohibition of legal proceedings on feast days was less strictly enforced than that of holding courts on the Sabbath, ‘therefore it is quite thinkable that it did not seem to the Sanhedrists an infringement of an important rule to start a legal trial even on the night of the Pesach’. It is the argument of this article that all the Gospels witness to such a trial which, while viable in its date, contravened accepted practice as subsequently enshrined in the Mishnah at many points, as Blinzler shows. For example, the proceedings took place in the house of Caiaphas, not in the Temple, and though Jesus had not actually pronounced the Name of God, he was condemned as a blasphemer. He was not offered an advocate; the witnesses were not warned before being examined; nor were they called to account for false witness. The members of the Sanhedrin, although witnesses of the alleged blasphemy, took part in the passing of the sentence, though it was not legal for them to do so. As Blinzler says, one is not able ‘to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law’. The question is, why did they do this?‘ It will not do to suggest that the occasion was a sham—the proceedings were undoubtedly carried through before a competent bench of judges’. Nor can their contraventions of the Mishnaic code be simply dismissed by saying that it was not yet in force. It is true that it was not codified until about 200 AD, and reflects conditions which obtained then, but it certainly enshrines earlier practice to a considerable extent. For example, Segal says that in describing Temple ritual, it may be employed with confidence. May not the same apply to legal practice?… Before the Feast of the Passover Caiaphas is reported to have said in council: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish’ (Jn. 11:50). Expediency was the factor which determined his conduct. When the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself to secure Jesus’ death, he and the priests avidly took it. Spurred on by their hatred of him; persuaded that as he was a false teacher, his execution on a feast day would be appropriate; and pressurized by shortage of time, they held his trial on the paschal night. In this trial they contravened normal legal practice at many points. The fact that they could do this in the legal sphere makes it likely that they could, because of the exceptional circumstances, also contravene ritual practice. For the exigencies of the case demanded that they work through the night. Early next morning therefore, they still had not eaten their paschal meal [emphasis mine]. (Hamilton, 1992, pp. 335-336)

We can certainly explain away the apparent impropriety with “maybe if we look at it this way” and “maybe that,” if we assume that the narrative is historical. But it seems just as likely that the writers were emphasizing and augmenting the wrongs being done to Jesus, who they felt was wrongly executed to make a point about the world turning on God’s specially beloved agapetos. Is the most parsimonious explanation really that in the case of a multitude of apparent illegalities, there are a multitude of loopholes that happened historically? Or are the gospel writers making the point that the Jewish leaders were manipulating God’s words while they knew that they were going against His will in getting Jesus killed (e.g., John 18:31), and so they tricked the Romans into executing Jesus akin to how Darius’ officials conspired against Daniel by tricking King Darius into throwing Daniel into the lion’s den in Daniel 6? Is the true meaning of blasphemy cursing God, or rather is it knowingly twisting God’s words to serve one’s own agenda? The Jewish trial of Jesus in the Gospels is obviously ahistorical, a narrative simply invented as an example of Paul’s thoughts about the world versus the Christian approach that “We have renounced the shameful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word…” (2 Corinthians 4:2). We have with Jesus’ “trial” a fiction made out of a sophisticated understanding and manipulation of Jewish law and tradition to create satire that screams at an elite educated writer, not the oral traditions of an illiterate community.

Moreover, Hamilton says:

Certainly therefore, an execution would have been contrary to the sabbatical nature of the first paschal day. However, Deut. 17: 12-13 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who opposes the decisions of the priests, to be carried out so that ‘all the people shall hear and fear’, and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:4) gives special instructions for the execution of a rebellious teacher: ‘He was kept in guard until one of the three feasts, and he was put to death on one of the three feasts’. This shows that in certain circumstances executions were permitted on feast days. Moreover, [Paul] Billerbeck says that where an example is required ‘to protect the Torah from wilfully severe transgressions, an execution may, as an exception, supersede a feast day’. (Hamilton, 1992, p. 335)

Regarding the illegality of the trial with the Sanhedrin in Mark, Price comments:

Mark borrowed from Daniel 6:4 LXX the scene of the crossfire of false accusations (Helms, p. 118): “The governors and satraps sought (ezetoun) to find (eurein) occasion against Daniel, but they found against him no accusation.” Of this Mark (14:55) has made the following: “The chief priests and the whole council sought (ezetoun) testimony against Jesus in order to kill him, but they found none (ouk euriskon).” Mark 14:65, where Jesus suffers blows and mockery as a false prophet, comes from 1 Kings 22:24, “Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, ‘How did the spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you?’ And Micaiah said, ‘Behold, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide yourself’” (Miller, p. 350). Mark has used Micaiah’s retort, “Behold, you shall see…” as the model for Jesus’ retort that his accusers/attackers will one day behold Jesus enthroned as the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13-14. It is interesting to speculate whether the doctrine of the second coming of Christ did not spring full-blown from Mark’s reversal of order between the Son of Man’s coming with the clouds and sitting on the throne in Daniel 7. Jesus’ silence at both trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate (14:60-61; 15:4-5) comes from Isaiah 50:7; 53:7. (Price, 2005)