Sign up to post your comments
It's quick and easy to register with Crosswalk.com! Just fill out the short form below.
You'll have the opportunity to post comments, and be more involved in our community
and forums. Plus, with this one account, you can sign in anywhere in our network of
sites displaying the Salem All-Pass logo, including Oneplace.com, Christianity.com,
Lightsource.com, Crosscards.com, and more!
Required fields marked with *
Report this post
Jesus was a Pharisee. Pharisaic reforms to the law at that period included making the law more humane, especially the penal code. The “lex talionis” was interpreted to mean that compensation should be paid in money for an injury.
Capital punishment was not abolished but was hedged around with so many conditions and qualifications it was rarely ever carried out. Evidence had to be clear to an absolutely unequivocal degree. There had to be two eye-witnesses’ as circumstantial evidence or even a confession was not admissible.
Josephus wrote of the humanity of the Pharisees in penal matters and stated that they “tend to be lenient in punishments” (Antiquities xiii. 10.6). However, the Sadducees accepted the Biblical penal code in its harshest literal sense.
So the likely answer to your question is that Jesus the Pharisee would have demanded a lot of hard evidence before he and his fellow judges condemned anyone