From: Ben Crick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Oct 16 1997 - 22:38:59 EDT
On Sun 12 Oct 97 (20:06:13), email@example.com wrote:
> At 7:41 PM -0500 10/12/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> >When Jesus was asked:
> > 1) SU OUN EI hO hIOS TOU QEOU (Lk 22:70),
> > 2) SU EI hO BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN (Lk 23:3),
> >He responded respectively,
> > 1) hUMEIS LEGETE hOTI EGW EIMI, and
> > 2) SU LEGEIS.
Am I missing something here, or is Jesus not merely responding to the
serious charges of Blasphemy by saying, "That's what YOU allege; [now prove
it]" with his hUMAIS LEGETE... and his SU LEGEIS ?
They had no witnesses (save false witnesses) as to what He had said. So the
High Priest adjured him by the strongest possible oath, SU EI hO CRISTOS
hO hUIOS TOU EULOGHTOU; Jesus was forced to answer EGW EIMI: with all that
that implied concerning the I AM THAT I AM of Exodus 3:14 (Mark 14:61-62;
compare Matthew 26:63).
Western jurisprudence does not allow the prosecution to force an accused to
incriminate himself out of his own mouth. The "right to silence" is written
into our law. But at Jesus' trial there was no defence counsel to cry
"Object!". As a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not
his mouth (Isaiah 53:7).
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <firstname.lastname@example.org> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:33 EDT