Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and
structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court
systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic
courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context
of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan.
Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle
them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges
under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system
the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no
distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt
primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The
basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side
calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.
Old
Testament
Courts
in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court
systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near
East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge,
a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading
citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard
cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen.
23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut.
22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were
appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut.
16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the
case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a
higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were
bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished
between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev.
10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just
religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).
With
the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge,
and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed
judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice
(1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon
provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the
case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings
3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the
“Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7).
Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two
courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases
concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).
The
OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court
procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced
together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary,
or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the
judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the
judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge
stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan,
“accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The
accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job
31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each
party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at
least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted
responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the
first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7).
If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the
crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical
evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked
sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be
undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At
times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15)
or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been
examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty
(Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine,
compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily
used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence
and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a
sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to
atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).
Ideally,
judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut.
16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false
witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes,
perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11).
Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak,
just, and no respecter of persons.
New
Testament
During
the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered
justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of
twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin,
consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of
priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the
Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and
judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26).
The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal
and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise
capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were
probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great
Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor.
11:24).
The
Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial
procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with
the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’
trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a
hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The
proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace
instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could
not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was
condemned on Friday during Passover.
The
trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law.
Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually
left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example,
Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the
proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such
officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time.
Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two
years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the
discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent
Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired
about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman
official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make
their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an
opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not
the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the
accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As
a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When
Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology
from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship
also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).
Paul
expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom.
13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking
other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they
should be able to settle disputes within the church.
