A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

COURTS AND TRIALS

Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.

Old Testament Legal Procedures

Exodus to Deuteronomy

The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 BC) are described in other OT books.

The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.

Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).

In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).

Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).

When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.

Other Old Testament Books

When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).

In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).

The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).

A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).

New Testament Legal Procedures

Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.

In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, rsv). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).

The Trials of Jesus

Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.

After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, rsv). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.

Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.

The Trials of the Apostle Paul

Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.

When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.

The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).