At this point we saw James Chapter 3 addressing TEACHERS OF THE LAW (legal and political people), who have a high level of LIABILITY towards God in their professional occupation. We also saw James give them a BEAT-DOWN because of their corrupt work-product and the destruction it brings upon society. Along those lines, this blog will consider the BLESSING AND CURSING that these LEGAL PEOPLE bring to society through their WORDS (work-product). Here’s where James deals with that:
With it [the tongue] we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. (James 3:9-10)
What I want to know is what James meant by “bless our Lord and Father” and “curse men”, don’t you? If I knew what he was referring to, then I’d also get a good idea of what he meant, so I can see the PRINCIPLE that applies to us today. To do that, we’re going to take a look at some of the history behind BLESSING and CURSING during the days when James lived.
What did James know as “bless our Lord and Father”? I think he was referring to PRAYER and PUBLIC ADDRESS. Here are some examples of modern “Jewish” prayers:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-prayers
Just click on one of he prayer headings, and read some of the prayers. You’ll begin to see the word BLESSED appear repeatedly in the prayers. You’ll also see adulations towards God. Those are the BLESSINGS TO GOD that James is referring to. One thing about these modern JEWISH PRAYERS is, some of them are from ‘the ancients’. That means, some of them date back to the time of Jesus and earlier. Prayers were delivered in routine public forums as well as being a matter of personal practice. You should see that in the above prayers too.
If you want to see more prayers from primary sources, you need to read the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The LXX has the Apocrypha, which can be found here: http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e124). And the Pseudepigrapha can be found here: http://ocp.tyndale.ca. There’s other ancient literature you can look at too, such as the Mishnah and other “Jewish (rabbinic) literature”.
Blessing God is a HUGE subject in Judaism, and always has been. It’s how they SHOW RESPECT towards God WITH THEIR WORDS. I’m sure God likes it WHEN THEIR WORDS MATCH THEIR LIFESTYLE. But when their words of blessing/praise are EMPTY, due to wrongdoing in their lifestyle, God doesn’t have much of a taste for that! Here’s one example of Him telling us what He thinks about that:
And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. (Mark 7:6)
Then YHWH said, “… this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote … (Isaiah 29:13 )
Blessing God has got millennia of tradition behind it among Jews!
As a side note, Christians are accustomed to having their pastor/priest/minister BLESS THEM. So when they hear the word BLESS, they think it’s for themselves, not for God. When it comes to God, the Christians use the term PRAISE GOD instead of BLESS GOD. Same thing, different words. Or like my buddy would say, “same difference”. So, for a Jew, BLESSING GOD is the same thing as the Christian’s PRAISING GOD.
Another way people BLESS with their WORDS is when a JUDGE issues a FAVORABLE JUDGMENT towards you. We’ll see that in a moment right out of the OT.
What then did James know as “we curse men”? I think he was referring to PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS and PRIVATE DEALINGS. Here’s an excellent comment on PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS right out of Isaiah the prophet, chapter 59:
2 But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.
3 For your hands are defiled with blood
And your fingers with iniquity;
Your lips have spoken falsehood,
Your tongue mutters wickedness.
4 No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly.
They trust in confusion and speak lies;
They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.
5 They hatch adders’ eggs and weave the spider’s web;
He who eats of their eggs dies,
And from that which is crushed a snake breaks forth.
6 Their webs will not become clothing,
Nor will they cover themselves with their works;
Their works are works of iniquity,
And an act of violence is in their hands.
7 Their feet run to evil,
And they hasten to shed innocent blood;
Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity,
Devastation and destruction are in their highways.
8 They do not know the way of peace,
And there is no justice in their tracks;
They have made their paths crooked,
Whoever treads on them does not know peace.
9 Therefore justice is far from us,
And righteousness does not overtake us;
We hope for light, but behold, darkness,
For brightness, but we walk in gloom.
10 We grope along the wall like blind men,
We grope like those who have no eyes;
We stumble at midday as in the twilight,
Among those who are vigorous we are like dead men.
11 All of us growl like bears,
And moan sadly like doves;
We hope for justice, but there is none,
For salvation, but it is far from us.
12 For our transgressions are multiplied before You,
And our sins testify against us;
For our transgressions are with us,
And we know our iniquities:
13 Transgressing and denying the Lord,
And turning away from our God,
Speaking oppression and revolt,
Conceiving in and uttering from the heart lying words.
14 Justice is turned back,
And righteousness stands far away;
For truth has stumbled in the street,
And uprightness cannot enter.
15 Yes, truth is lacking;
And he who turns aside from evil makes himself a prey.
Now the Lord saw,
And it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice …
That text reminds me of Proverbs 6:
16 There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Here is another examples of this from the OT, specifically from an ADJUDICATION:
11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest … 16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before YHWH … and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people … 22 … And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.” 23 ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her … 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness … and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.
29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’” (Numbers 5)
That should give you an idea of how a Jew of James’ time recognized when they were being BLESSED or CURSED by a LAW PERSON (today’s judge or bureaucrat). It should be obvious by now that BLESSING and CURSING had an ancient historical tradition behind it by the time Jesus came on the scene.
Moreover, the Pentateuch reveals BLESSING AND CURSING to be a critical part of the “Mosaic” COVENANT, as we saw in a previous blog on COVENANT. We saw that it had to do with the END RESULT of OBEYING or DISOBEYING God’s Law. Here’s some OT texts on it:
See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse … (Deuteronomy 11:26)
It shall come about, when YHWH your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, that you shall place the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal. (Deuteronomy 11:29)
So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where YHWH your God has banished you … (Deuteronomy 30:1)
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants … (Deuteronomy 30:19)
Then afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law. (Joshua 8:34)
There are many more like that, plus the statement is repeated throughout the OT, as a reminder to God’s people’s of their COVENANT OBLIGATIONS and the CONSEQUENCES therewith associated.
By the NT era (2nd Temple times), the idea of BLESSING AND CURSING developed into a well-defined DUAL AUTHORITY THING, where a JUDGE could bless/curse you or GOD could bless/curse you. When the judge ruled in your favor, YOU GOT BLESSED. When he ruled against you, YOU GOT CURSED. When the judge could not or would not bless or curse you, then they left that up to GOD. The two reasons I found for that are:
1. the LAW didn’t allow the judge to do that, and reserved that to God’s perview, and
2. the judge was afraid to do it (due to the potential threats on his life), so he passed the duty off onto God (he shirked his duty to save his skin).
You find all this in rabbinic literature. Here are some examples from John Lightfoot’s commentaries (17th century):
John 18:31. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
[It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.] Doth Pilate jest or deride them, when he bids them “take him, and judge him according to their own law?” It cannot be denied but that all capital judgment, or sentence upon life, had been taken from the Jews for above forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as they oftentimes themselves confess. But how came this to pass? It is commonly received, that the Romans, at this time the Jews’ lords and masters, had taken from all their courts a power and capacity of judging the capital matters. We have spoken largely upon this subject in our notes upon Matthew 26:3 [see below]. Let us superadd a few things here:
“Rabh Cahna saith, When R. Ismael Bar Jose lay sick, they sent to him saying, ‘Pray, sir, tell us two or three things which thou didst once tell us in the name of thy father.’ He saith to them, ‘A hundred and fourscore years before the destruction of the Temple, the wicked kingdom’ [the Rome empire] reigned over Israel. Fourscore years before the destruction of the Temple, they” [the fathers of the Sanhedrim] “determined about the uncleanness of the heathen land, and about glass vessels. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrim removed and sat in the Tabernae. What is the meaning of this tradition? Rabh Isaac Bar Abdimi saith, ‘They did not judge judgments of mulcts.'” The Gloss is: “Those are the judgments about finding any that offered violence, that entice a maid, and the price of a servant. When, therefore, they did not sit in the room Gazith, they did not judge about these things; and so those judgments about mulcts or fines ceased.”
Here we have one part of their judiciary power lost, not taken away from them by the Romans, but falling of itself, as it were, out of the hands of the Sanhedrim. Nor did the Romans indeed take away their power of judging in capital matters, but they, by their own oscitancy, supine and unreasonable lenity, lost it themselves. For so the Gemara goes on:
“Rabh Nachman Bar Isaac saith, ‘Let him not say that they did not judge judgments of mulcts, but that they did not judge capital judgments. And whence comes this? When they saw that so many murderers multiplied upon them, that they could not well judge and call them to account, they said, It is better for us that we remove from place to place, for how can we otherwise” [sitting here and not punishing them] “not contract a guilt upon ourselves?‘”
They thought themselves obliged to punish murderers while they sat in the room Gazith: for the place itself engaged them to it. They are the words of the Gemarists. Upon which the Gloss: “The room Gazith was half of it within and half of it without the Holy Place. The reason of which was, that it was requisite that the council should sit near the Divine Majesty. Hence it is that they say, ‘Whoever constitutes an unfit judge, is as if he planted a grove by the altar of the Lord: as it is written, Judges and officers shalt thou make thee’: and it follows presently after, ‘Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God,’ Deuteronomy 16:18,21. They removed therefore from Gazith, and sat in the Tabernae. Now though the Tabernae were upon the Mountain of the Temple, yet they did not sit so near the Divine Majesty there as they did when they sat in the room Gazith.”
Let us now, in order, put the whole matter together:
I. The Sanhedrim were most stupidly and unreasonably remiss in their punishment of capital offenders, going upon this reason especially, that they accounted it so horrible a thing to sentence an Israelite to death. Forsooth, he is of the seed of Abraham, of the blood and stock of Israel; and you must have a care how you touch such a one!
“R. Eliezer Bar R. Simeon had laid hold on some thieves. R. Joshua Bar Korchah sent to him, saying, ‘O thou vinegar, the son of good wine‘” [i.e. O thou wicked son of a good father], “‘how long wilt thou deliver the people of God to the slaughter?’ He answered and said, ‘I root the thorns out of the vineyard.’ To whom the other, ‘Let the Lord of the vineyard come and root them out himself.'” It is worth nothing that the very thieves of Israel are the people of God: and O! they must not be touched by any means, but referred to the judgment of God himself.
“When R. Ismael Bar R. Jose was constituted a magistrate by the king, there happened some such thing to him; for Elias himself rebuked him, saying, ‘How long wilt thou deliver over the people of God to slaughter?'” Hence that which we alleged elsewhere: “The Sanhedrim that happens to sentence any one to death within the space of seven years is called ‘a destroyer.’ R. Eleazar Ben Azariah saith, ‘It is so, if they should but condemn one within seventy years.'”
II. It is obvious to any one, how this foolish remissness and letting loose the reins of judgment would soon increase the number of robbers, murderers, and all kind of wickedness: and, indeed, they did so abundantly multiply, that the Sanhedrim neither could nor durst, as it ought, call the criminals to account. The laws slept while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and punitive justice was so out of countenance, that, as to uncertain murders, they made no search; and certain ones they framed no judgment against.
“Since the time that homicides multiplied, the beheading the heifer ceased.” And in the place before quoted in Avodah; “When they saw the number of murderers so greatly increase, that they could not sit in judgment upon them, they said, ‘Let us remove,'” &c.
So in the case of adultery, which we also observed in our notes upon chapter 8. “Since the time that adultery so openly advanced under the second Temple, they let off trying the adulteress by the bitter water,” &c.
So that we see the liberty of judging in capital matters was no more taken from the Jews by the Romans than the beheading of the heifer or the trial of the suspected wife by the bitter waters was taken away by them; which no one will affirm. But rather,
III. When the Sanhedrim saw that it was in vain to struggle against the mighty torrent and inundation of all manner of wickedness, that played rex and encroached so fast upon them, and that the interposure of their authority could do nothing in suppressing them, they being incapable of passing judgment as they ought, they determine not to sit in judgment at all. And whereas they thought themselves bound by the majesty and awfulness of the place, while they sat in the room Gazith [in the very Court of Israel before the altar], to judge according to the sacredness of the place, but could not indeed do it by reason of the daring pride and resolution of the criminals, they threw themselves out of that apartment, and went further off into the place where the exchangers’ shops were kept in the Court of the Gentiles, and so to other places, which we find mentioned in Rosh hashanah.
IV. It is disputed whether they ever returned to their first place Gazith, or no. It is affirmed by the Gloss in Avodah Zarah: “When for a time they found it absolutely necessary, they betook themselves again to that room.” We have the same also elsewhere upon this tradition:
“It is a tradition of R. Chaia. From the day wherein the Temple was destroyed, though the Sanhedrim ceased, yet the four kinds of death” [which were wont to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim] “did not cease. For he that had deserved to be stoned to death, he either fell off from some house, or some wild beast tore and devoured him. He that had deserved burning, he either fell into some fire or some serpent bit him. He that had deserved to be slain: [i.e. with the sword], was either delivered into the hands of a heathen king, or was murdered by robbers. He that had deserved strangling was either drowned in some river, or choked by a squinancy [angina].”
But it may be objected, Why is it said, “From the time that the Temple was destroyed,” and not, “forty years before the destruction of the Temple?” To this the Gloss answereth: “Sometimes, according to the urgency and necessity of the time, the Sanhedrim returned to the room Gazith,” &c. It is further excepted “But they never returned to sit in capital causes, or to try murders. For the reason of their removal at first was because the numbers of homicides so increased upon them,” &c.
V. When the great council did not sit in Gazith, all courts for capital matters ceased everywhere else. One Gloss saith thus: “They took no cognizance of capital matters in any of the lesser sessions, so long as the great Sanhedrim did not sit in the room Gazith.” Another saith; “What time the great Sanhedrim sat in its proper place, where it ought, near the altar, then thou shalt make thee judges in all thy gates, to judge in capital causes: but when that removed, then all cognizance about those matters ceased.”
VI. The Sanhedrim removed, as we have already seen, from Gazith, forty years before Jerusalem was destroyed: and this is the very thing that was said, “Forty years before the destruction of the city, judgment in capital causes was taken away from them.” And now let the reader judge what should be the reason of their being deprived of this privilege: whether the Romans were in fault; or whether rather the Jews, nay, the Sanhedrim itself, had not brought it upon themselves. When the Sanhedrim flitted from Gazith: all judgment of this kind vanished, and upon what reasons they did thus flit we have learned from their own pens.
We will not contend about the time when these forty years should first begin: though I am apt to think they might begin about half a year before Christ’s death. The words which we have under consideration, spoken by the Sanhedrim to Pilate, seem to refer wholly to the reason we have already mentioned: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” Why is it not lawful? Because, being forced by the necessity of the times, we retired from the room Gazith, where if we sit not, neither we ourselves nor any court under us can take any cognizance of causes of life and death.
But what necessity of times could urge you to remove? So greatly did the criminals multiply, and grew to such a head, that we neither could not durst animadvert upon them, according to what the majesty of the place might expect and require from us if we should sit in Gazith.
That must be observed in the evangelists, that when they had had Christ in examination in the palace of the high priest all night, in the morning the whole Sanhedrim met, that they might pass sentence of death upon him. Where then was this that they met? Questionless in the room Gazith; at least if they adhered to their own rules and constitutions: “Thither they betook themselves sometimes upon urgent necessity.” The Gloss before quoted excepts “only the case of murder”; which, amongst all their false accusations, they never charged Christ with.
But however suppose it were granted that the great council met either in the Tabernae or some other place, (which yet by no means agreed with their own tradition,) did they deal truly, and as the matter really and indeed was, with Pilate, when they tell him, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death?” He had saith to them, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.” We have indeed judged and condemned him, but we cannot put any one to death. Was this that they said in fact true? How came they then to stone the protomartyr Stephen? How came they to stone Ben Satda at Lydda? How came they to burn the priest’s daughter alive that was taken in adultery?
It is probable they had not put any one to death as yet, since the time that they had removed out of Gazith; and so might the easilier persuade Pilate in that case. But their great design was to throw off the odium of Christ’s death from themselves, at least amongst the vulgar crowd, fearing them, if the council themselves should have decreed his execution. They seek this evasion, therefore, which did not altogether want some colour and pretext of truth: and it succeeded according to what they did desire; Divine Providence so ordering it, as the evangelist intimates, verse 32, “That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die”: that is, be crucified, according to the custom of the Romans.
Whilst I am upon this thought, I cannot but reflect upon that passage, than which nothing is more worthy observation, in the whole description of the Roman beast in the Revelation, chapter 13:4: “The dragon which gave power unto the beast.” We cannot say this of the Assyrian, Babylonish, or any other monarchy; for the Holy Scriptures do not say it. But reason dictates, and the event itself tells us, that there was something acted by the Roman empire in behalf of the dragon which was not compatible with any other, that is, the putting of the Son of God to death. Which thing we must remember, as often as we recite that article of our creed, “He suffered under Pontius Pilate”; that is, was put to death by the Roman empire.
Matthew 26:3. Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.
[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.
Another area of BLESSING and CURSE is in WRITTEN CONTRACTS. That’s a gigantic area of it’s own that needs to be looked at in another blog series. So I’ll leave that alone this time around.
Suffice to say that the above constitutes my understanding of the ‘bare-bones’ idea underlying BLESSING AND CURSING. No doubt there’s much more to it … lots and lots of juicy details!
There was another sphere of BLESSING AND CURSING which involved the lives and social practices of the common people. But I don’t want to get bogged-down by that sort of thing in this blog, because this blog is about LAW PEOPLE in the PUBLIC world.
As you can see, James is pretty straight-forward with us in this chapter. Once you know what he’s saying, it’s pretty clear to see how this applies to the upper levels of all societies throughout the ages. Bottom line: THE POWER OF WORDS SPOKEN BY THE POWER-BROKERS OF SOCIETY CAN HELP OR HARM BOTH PEOPLE AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. That is what James is talking about.
In our next blog I’m going to talk about some more of the key words in Chapter 3. Let’s see how James reinforces his point and continues on with his RANT!
Reality Bible 