have spoken, as Peter has done, of the entire destruction of this
mundane system, nor of the destruction of any part thereof. They mention
only the rolling of the heavens together as a scroll, the obscuring of
the light of the sun and of the moon, the shaking of the heavens and the
earth, and the falling down of the stars: whereas Peter speaks of the
utter destruction of all the parts of this mundane system by fire. This
difference affords room for believing that the events foretold by the
prophets are different in their nature from those foretold by the
Apostle; and that they are to be figuratively understood, while those
predicted by the Apostle are to be understood literally. To this
conclusion, likewise, the phraseology of the prophets, compared with
that of the Apostle, evidently leads: for the prophetic phraseology,
literally interpreted, exhibits impossibilities; such as the rolling of
the heavens together as a scroll; the turning of the moon into blood,
and the falling down of the stars from heaven as the leaf of a tree. Not
so the apostolic phraseology: for the burning of the heavens, or
atmosphere, and its passing away with a great noise; and the burning of
the earth and the works thereon, together with the burning and melting
of the elements, that is, the constituent parts of which this
terraqueous globe is composed; are all things possible, and therefore
may be literally understood; while the things mentioned by the prophets
can only be taken figuratively. This, however, is not all. There are
things in the Apostle’s prophecy which show that he intended it to be
taken literally. As, 1. He begins with an account of the perishing of
the old world, to demonstrate against the scoffers the possibility of
the perishing of the present heavens and earth. But that example would
not have suited his purpose; unless, by the burning of the present
heavens and earth, he had meant the destruction of the material fabric.
Wherefore, the opposition stated in this prophecy between the perishing
of the old world by water, and the perishing of the present world by
fire, shows that the latter is to be as real a destruction of the
material fabric as the former was. 2. The circumstance of the present
heavens and earth being treasured up and kept, ever since the first
deluge, from all after deluges, in order to their being destroyed by
fire at the day of judgment, shows, we think, that the Apostle is
speaking of a real, and not of a metaphorical, destruction of the
heavens and earth. 3. This appears, likewise, from the Apostle’s
foretelling that, after the present heavens and earth are burned, new
heavens and a new earth are to appear, in which the righteous are for
ever to dwell. 4. The time fixed by the Apostle for the burning of the
heavens and the earth, namely, the day of judgment and punishment of
ungodly men, shows that the Apostle is speaking, not of the destruction
of a single city or nation during the subsistence of the world, but of
the earth itself, with all the wicked who have dwelt thereon. These
circumstances persuade us that this prophecy, as well as the one
recorded, 2 Thess. i, 9, is not to be interpreted metaphorically of the
destruction of Jerusalem; but should be understood literally of the
general judgment, and of the destruction of our mundane system.
But “it is appointed unto men once to die, and after death the
judgment.” These two events are inseparably linked together in the
divine decree, and they reciprocally reflect importance on each other.
Death is, indeed, the terror of our nature. Men may contrive to keep it
from their thoughts, but they cannot think of it without fearful
apprehensions of its consequences. It was justly to be dreaded by man in
his state of innocence; and to the unrenewed man it ever was, and ever
will be, a just object of abhorrence. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, which
has brought life and immortality to light, is the only sovereign
antidote against this universal evil. To the believer in Christ, its
rough aspect is smoothed, and its terrors cease to be alarming. To him
it is the messenger of peace; its sting is plucked out; its dark valley
is the road to perfect bliss and life immortal. To him, “to live is
Christ, and to die is gain,” Phil. i, 21. To die! speaking properly, he
cannot die. He has already died in Christ, and with him: his “life is
hid with Christ in God,” Romans vi, 8; Col. iii, 3.
With this conquest of the fear of death is nearly allied another
glorious privilege resulting from union with the Redeemer; that, when he
shall appear, we may have confidence, and “not be ashamed before him at
his coming,” 1 John ii, 28. Were death all that we have to dread, death
might be braved. But after death there is a judgment; a judgment
attended with circumstances so tremendous as to shake the hearts of the
boldest of the sons of nature. Then “men shall seek death, and shall not
find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them,” Rev.
ix, 6. Then shall come indeed an awful day; a day to which all that have
preceded it are intended to be subservient; when the Lord shall appear
in the united splendour of creating, of governing, and of judicial
majesty, to finish his purposes respecting man and earth, and to
pronounce the final, irreversible sentence, “It is done!” Rev. xxi, 6.
Nothing of terror or magnificence hitherto beheld,--no glory of the
rising sun after a night of darkness and of storm,--no convulsions of
the earth,--no wide irruption of waters,--no flaming comet dragging its
burning train over half the heaven, can convey to us an adequate
conception of that day of terrible brightness and irresistible
devastation. Creation then shall be uncreated. “The heavens shall pass
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat;
the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up,” 2
Peter iii, 10. The Lord shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, 2
Thess. i, 7, 8, arrayed in all the glory of his Godhead, and attended by
his mighty angels, Matt. xvi, 27; xxv, 31. All that are in the grave
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, John v, 28, 29. Earth and
sea shall give up the dead which are in them. All that ever lived shall
appear before him, Rev. xx, 12, 13. The judgment shall sit; and the
books shall be opened, Dan. vii, 10. The eye of Omniscience detects
every concealment by which they would screen from observation
themselves, or their iniquity. The last reluctant sinner is finally
separated from the congregation of the righteous, Psalm i, 5; and
inflexible justice, so often disregarded, derided, and defied, gives
forth their eternal doom! But to the saints this shall be a day of glory
and honour. They shall be publicly acknowledged by God as his people;
publicly justified from the slanders of the world; invested with
immortal bodies; presented by Christ to the Father; and admitted into
the highest felicity in the immediate presence of God for ever. These
are the elevating, the transporting views, which made the Apostle Paul
speak with so much desire and earnest expectation of the “day of
Christ.”
JUSTICE is in Scripture taken for that essential perfection in God,
whereby he is infinitely righteous and just, both in himself and in all
his proceedings with his creatures, Psalm lxxxix, 14. 2. That political
virtue which renders to every man his due; and is first, distributive,
which concerns princes, magistrates, &c, Job xxix, 14; secondly,
communicative, which concerns all persons in their dealings one with
another, Gen. xviii, 19.
JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION OF. According to the Mosaic law, there were to
be judges in all the cities, whose duty it was likewise to exercise
judicial authority in the neighbouring villages; but weighty causes and
appeals went up to the supreme judge or ruler of the commonwealth, and,
in case of a failure here, to the high priest, Deut. xvii, 8, 9. In the
time of the monarchy, weighty causes and appeals went up, of course, to
the king, who, in very difficult cases, seems to have consulted the high
priest, as is customary at the present day among the Persians and
Ottomans. The judicial establishment was reorganized after the
captivity, and two classes of judges, the inferior and superior, were
appointed, Ezra vii, 25. The more difficult cases, nevertheless, and
appeals, were either brought before the ruler of the state, called פחה,
or before the high priest; until, in the age of the Maccabees, a
supreme, judicial tribunal was instituted, which is first mentioned
under Hyrcanus II. This tribunal is not to be confounded with the
seventy-two counsellors, who were appointed to assist Moses in the civil
administration of the government, but who never filled the office of
judges. See SANHEDRIM.
Josephus states, that in every city there was a tribunal of seven
judges, with two Levites as apparitors, and that it was a Mosaic
institution. That there existed such an institution in his time, there
is no reason to doubt, but he probably erred in referring its origin to
so early a period as the days of Moses. (See _Judges_.) This tribunal,
which decided causes of less moment, is denominated in the New Testament
κρίσις, or _the judgment_, Matt. v, 22. The Talmudists mention a
tribunal of twenty-three judges, and another of three judges; but
Josephus is silent in respect to them. The courts of twenty-three judges
were the same with the synagogue tribunals, mentioned in John xvi, 2;
which merely tried questions of a religious nature, and sentenced to no
other punishment than “forty stripes save one,” 2 Cor. xi, 24. The court
of three judges was merely a session of referees, which was allowed to
the Jews by the Roman laws; for the Talmudists themselves, in describing
this court, go on to observe, that one judge was chosen by the accuser,
another by the accused, and a third by the two parties conjunctly; which
shows at once the nature of the tribunal.
The time at which courts were held, and causes were brought before them
for trial, was in the morning, Jer. xxi, 12; Psalm ci, 8. According to
the Talmudists, it was not lawful to try causes of a capital nature in
the night; and it was equally unlawful to examine a cause, pass
sentence, and put it in execution on the same day. The last particular
was very strenuously insisted on. It is worthy of remark, that all of
these practices, which were observed in other trials, were neglected in
the tumultuous trial of Jesus, Matt. xxvi, 57; John xviii, 13–18. The
places for judicial trials were in very ancient times the gates of
cities, which were well adapted to this purpose. (See _Gates_.)
Originally, trials were every where very summary, excepting in Egypt;
where the accuser committed the charge to writing, the accused replied
in writing, the accuser repeated the charge, and the accused answered
again, &c, Job xiv, 17. It was customary in Egypt for the judge to have
the code of laws placed before him, a practice which still prevails in
the east. Moses interdicted, in the most express and decided manner,
gifts or bribes, which were intended to corrupt the judges, Exod. xxii,
20, 21; xxiii, 1–9; Lev. xix, 15; Deut. xxiv, 14, 15. Moses also, by
legal precautions, prevented capital punishments, and corporal
punishments which were not capital, from being extended, as was done in
other nations, both to parents and their children, and thus involving
the innocent and the guilty in that misery which was justly due only to
the latter, Exod. xxiii, 7; Deut. xxiv, 16; Dan. vi, 24.
The ceremonies which were observed in conducting a judicial trial, were
as follows: 1. The accuser and the accused both made their appearance
before the judge or judges, Deut. xxv, 1, who sat with legs crossed upon
the floor, which was furnished for their accommodation with carpet and
cushions. A secretary was present, at least in more modern times, who
wrote down the sentence, and, indeed, every thing in relation to the
trial; for instance, the articles of agreement that might be entered
into previous to the commencement of the judicial proceedings, Isaiah x,
1, 2; Jer. xxxii, 1–14. The Jews assert that there were two secretaries,
the one being seated to the right of the judge, who wrote the sentence
of not guilty, the other to the left, who wrote the sentence of
condemnation, Matt. xxv, 33–46. That an apparitor or beadle was present,
is apparent from other sources. 2. The accuser was denominated in Hebrew
שטן, or _the adversary_, Zech. iii, 1–3; Psalm cix, 6. The judge or
judges were seated, but both of the parties implicated stood up, the
accuser standing to the right hand of the accused: the latter, at least
after the captivity, when the cause was one of great consequence,
appeared with hair dishevelled, and in a garment of mourning. 3. The
witnesses were sworn, and, in capital cases, the parties concerned, 1
Sam. xiv, 37–40; Matt. xxvi, 63. In order to establish the charges
alleged, two witnesses were necessary, and, including the accuser,
three. The witnesses were examined separately, but the person accused
had the liberty to be present when their testimony was given in, Num.
xxxv, 30; Deut. xvii, 1–15; Matt. xxvi, 59. Proofs might be brought from
other sources; for instance, from written contracts, or from papers in
evidence of any thing purchased or sold, of which there were commonly
taken two copies, the one to be sealed, the other to be left open, as
was customary in the time of Jerom, Jer. xxxii, 10–13. 4. The parties
sometimes, as may be inferred from Prov. xviii, 18, made use of the lot
in determining the points of difficulty between them, but not without a
mutual agreement. The sacred lot of Urim and Thummim was anciently
resorted to, in order to detect the guilty, Joshua vii, 14–24; 1 Sam.
xiv; but the determination of a case of right or wrong in this way was
not commanded by Moses. 5. The sentence, very soon after the completion
of the examination, was pronounced; and the criminal, without any delay,
even if the offence were a capital one, was hastened away to the place
of punishment, Joshua vii, 22, &c; 1 Sam. xxii, 18; 1 Kings ii, 23.
A few additional remarks will cast some light upon some passages of
Scripture: the station of the accused was in an eminent place in the
court, that the people might see them, and hear what was alleged against
them, and the proofs of it, together with the defence made by the
criminals. This explains the reason of the remark by the Evangelist
Matthew, concerning the posture of our Lord at his trial: “Jesus stood
before the governor;” and that, in a mock trial, many ages before the
birth of Christ, in which some attention was also paid to public forms,
Naboth was set on high among the people, 1 Kings xxi, 9. The accusers
and the witnesses also stood, unless they were allowed to sit by the
indulgence of the judges, when they stated the accusation, or gave their
testimony. To this custom of the accusers rising from their seats, when
called by the court to read the indictment, our Lord alludes in his
answer to the scribes and Pharisees, who expressed a wish to see him
perform some miracle: “The queen of the south shall rise up in the
judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it,” Matt. xii, 42.
According to this rule, which seems to have been invariably observed,
the Jews who accused the Apostle Paul at the bar of Festus the Roman
governor, “stood round about,” while they stated the crimes which they
had to lay to his charge, Acts xxv, 7. They were compelled to stand as
well as the prisoner, by the established usage of the courts of justice
in the east. The Romans often put criminals to the question, or
endeavoured to extort a confession from them by torture. Agreeably to
this cruel and unjust custom, “the chief captain commanded Paul to be
brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by
scourging,” Acts xxii, 24. It was usual, especially among the Romans,
when a man was charged with a capital crime, and during his arraignment,
to let down his hair, suffer his beard to grow long, to wear filthy,
ragged garments, and appear in a very dirty and sordid habit; on account
of which they were called _sordidati_. When the person accused was
brought into court to be tried, even his near relations, friends, and
acquaintances, before the court voted, appeared with dishevelled hair,
and clothed with garments foul and out of fashion, weeping, crying, and
deprecating punishment. The accused sometimes appeared before the judges
clothed in black, and his head covered with dust. In allusion to this
ancient custom, the Prophet Zechariah represents Joshua, the high
priest, when he appeared before the Lord, and Satan stood at his right
hand to accuse him, as clothed with filthy garments, Zech. iii, 3. After
the cause was carefully examined, and all parties impartially heard, the
public crier, by command of the presiding magistrate, ordered the judges
to bring in their verdict. The most ancient way of giving sentence, was
by white and black sea shells, or pebbles. This custom has been
mentioned by Ovid in these lines:--
_Mos erat antiquis, niveis atrisque lapillis,
His damnare reos, illis absolvere culpa._
“It was a custom among the ancients, to give their votes by white or
black stones; with these they condemned the guilty, with those acquitted
the innocent.” In allusion to this ancient custom, our Lord promises to
give the spiritual conqueror “a white stone,” Rev. ii, 17; the white
stone of absolution or approbation. When sentence of condemnation was
pronounced, if the case was capital, the witnesses put their hands on
the head of the criminal, and said, “Thy blood be upon thine own head.”
To this custom the Jews alluded, when they cried out at the trial of
Christ, “His blood be on us and on our children.” Then was the
malefactor led to execution, and none were allowed openly to lament his
misfortune. His hands were secured with cords, and his feet with
fetters; a custom which furnished David with an affecting allusion, in
his lamentation over the dust of Abner: “Thy hands were not bound, nor
thy feet put in fetters,” 2 Sam. iii, 34; that is, he was put
treacherously to death, without form of justice.
2. Executions in the east are often very prompt and arbitrary, when
resulting from royal authority. In many cases the suspicion is no sooner
entertained, or the cause of offence given, than the fatal order is
issued; the messenger of death hurries to the unsuspecting victim, shows
his warrant, and executes his orders that instant in silence and
solitude. Instances of this kind are continually occurring in the
Turkish and Persian histories. When the enemies of a great man among the
Turks have gained influence enough over the prince to procure a warrant
for his death, a _capidgi_, the name of the officer who executes these
orders, is sent to him, who shows him the order he has received to carry
back his head; the other takes the warrant of the grand signior, kisses
it, puts it on his head in token of respect, and then, having performed
his ablutions and said his prayers, freely resigns his life. The
_capidgi_, having strangled him, cuts off his head, and brings it to
Constantinople. The grand signior’s order is implicitly obeyed; the
servants of the victim never attempt to hinder the executioner, although
these _capidgis_ come very often with few or no attendants. It appears
from the writings of Chardin, that the nobility and grandees of Persia
are put to death in a manner equally silent, hasty, and unobstructed.
Such executions were not uncommon among the Jews under the government of
their kings. Solomon sent Benaiah as his _capidgi_, or executioner, to
put Adonijah, a prince of his own family, to death; and Joab, the
commander-in-chief of the forces in the reign of his father. A _capidgi_
likewise beheaded John the Baptist in prison, and carried his head to
the court of Herod. To such silent and hasty executioners the royal
preacher seems to refer in that proverb, “The wrath of a king is as
messengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it,” Prov. xvi, 14: his
displeasure exposes the unhappy offender to immediate death, and may
fill the unsuspecting bosom with terror and dismay, like the appearance
of a _capidgi_; but by wise and prudent conduct a man may sometimes
escape the danger. From the dreadful promptitude with which Benaiah
executed the commands of Solomon on Adonijah and Joab, it may be
concluded that the executioner of the court was as little ceremonious,
and the ancient Jews, under their kings, nearly as passive, as the Turks
or Persians. The Prophet Elisha is the only person on the inspired
record who ventured to resist the bloody mandate of the sovereign; the
incident is recorded in these terms: “But Elisha sat in his house, and
the elders sat with him; and the king sent a man from before him; but
ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See how this son
of a murderer hath sent to take away mine head? Look ye, when the
messenger cometh, shut the door and hold him fast at the door; is not
the sound of his master’s feet behind him?” 2 Kings vi, 32. But if such
mandates had not been too common among the Jews, and in general
submitted to without resistance, Jehoram had scarcely ventured to
despatch a single messenger to take away the life of so eminent a person
as Elisha.
Criminals were at other times executed in public; and then commonly
without the city. To such executions without the gate, the Psalmist
undoubtedly refers in this complaint: “The dead bodies of thy saints
have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven; the flesh of
thy saints unto the beasts of the earth; their blood have they shed like
water round about Jerusalem, and there was none to bury them,” Psalm
lxxix, 2, 3. The last clause admits of two senses: 1. There was no
friend or relation left to bury them. 2. None were allowed to perform
this last office. The despotism of eastern princes often proceeds to a
degree of extravagance which is apt to fill the mind with astonishment
and horror. It has been thought, from time immemorial, highly criminal
to bury those who had lost their lives by the hand of an executioner,
without permission. In Morocco, no person dares to bury the body of a
malefactor without an order from the emperor; and Windus, who visited
that country, speaking of a man who was sawn in two, informs us, that
his body must have remained to be eaten by the dogs if the emperor had
not pardoned him; an extravagant custom to pardon a man after he is
dead; but unless he does so, no person dares bury the body. To such a
degree of savage barbarity it is probable the enemies of God’s people
carried their opposition, that no person dared to bury the dead bodies
of their innocent victims.
In ancient times, persons of the highest rank and station were employed
to execute the sentence of the law. They had not then, as we have at
present, public executioners; but the prince laid his commands on any of
his courtiers whom he chose, and probably selected the person for whom
he had the greatest favour. Gideon commanded Jether, his eldest son, to
execute his sentence on the kings of Midian; the king of Israel ordered
the footmen who stood around him, and who were probably a chosen body of
soldiers for the defence of his person, to put to death the priests of
the Lord; and when they refused, Doeg, an Edomite, one of his principal
officers. Long after the days of Saul, the reigning monarch commanded
Benaiah, the chief captain of his armies, to perform that duty.
Sometimes the chief magistrate executed the sentence of the law with his
own hands; for when Jether shrunk from the duty which his father
required, Gideon, at that time the supreme magistrate in Israel, did not
hesitate to do it himself. In these times such a command would be
reckoned equally barbarous and unbecoming; but the ideas which were
entertained in those primitive ages of honour and propriety, were in
many respects extremely different from ours. In Homer, the exasperated
Ulysses commanded his son Telemachus to put to death the suitors of
Penelope, which was immediately done. The custom of employing persons of
high rank to execute the sentence of the law, is still retained in the
principality of Senaar, where the public executioner is one of the
principal nobility; and, by virtue of his office, resides in the royal
palace.