02 HEBREW TRIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EVENTS

CHAPTER - THE HEBREW TRIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EVENTS THE ARREST Jesus went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus often times resorted thither with his disciples.

Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malehus.

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him ( John 18:1-12).

ANNAS And led Him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year (John 18:13).

Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people (John 18:14).

PETER DENIES JESUS And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself (John 18:15-18). And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter denied again: and immediately the cock crew (John 18:25-27). And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly ( Matthew 26:75).

JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS The high priest (Caiaphas) then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? ( John 18:19-23).

Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, THE EVIDENCE And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days ( Matthew 26:59-61). (We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together) ( Mark 14:58-59). And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. ( Matthew 26:62-63). THE SOLEMN ADJURATION And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven ( Matthew 26:63-64). THE CONVICTION Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death ( Matthew 26:65-66). THE MOCKING Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? (Matthew 26:67-68). THE GRAND CONSULTATION And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him, away, and delivered him to Pilate ( Mark 15:1). THE ARREST, TRIAL, CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF JESUS appear to have occurred in the brief space of about fifteen hours, during the fateful 14/15th day of Nisan (April) in the year A.D. 29, 30 or 33. It does not seem possible to fix the year with certainty. It is a matter of some difficulty to get a clear idea of the exact hour and the order in which the various incidents took place, but by comparison of the accounts given in the four Gospels, the probable times and order would seem to be as follows: About midnight Midnight to daybreak The arrest. Jesus appeared before Annas ( John 18:13) Trial before Caiaphas and Sanhedrin ( Matthew 26:57). Daybreak : 6 a .m . (‘When the morning was come’) Grand Consultation of “Chief Priests, Elders, Scribes and the whole Council” ( Mark 15:1) Sunrise (i .e . 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) Trial before Pilate ( Matthew 27:2), Herod and Pilate—Trial resumed (12th to 3rd hour.) ( Luke 23:7; Luke 23:11). 9 a .m . to Noon (3rd to 6th hour.) Procession to Calvary and Crucifixion ( Mark 15:35) Noon to 3 p .m . (6th to 9th hour.)

Jesus on the Cross ( Matthew 27:45). 3 p .m . (9th hour ) Jesus expired on the Cross ( Matthew 27:46-50) THE ARREST As we have seen, from the time Lazarus was raised from the dead, the Rulers of the Jews conspired to put Jesus to death. For some time before the arrest of Jesus, the Rulers had tried to “entangle him in his talk” ( Matthew 22:15) and, without success, to obtain evidence against Him of seditious activities. “They sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying. Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:17) and “when they brought unto him a penny, he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). On a previous occasion the Pharisees and the chief priests had sent officers to arrest Jesus ( John 7:32); but the officers returned empty handed. On being called upon to explain their failure they replied “never man spake like this man” (John 7:46). Presumably they had been instructed to listen to what Jesus said, and, if they heard anything that could be used as evidence against Him, they were to effect His arrest. No such evidence had been forthcoming. Nicodemus, one of the Rulers, made bold to criticize his colleagues and reminded them of a fundamental principle of Jewish law” “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51). As the Ministry of Jesus progressed and His fame spread throughout all Jewry the Rulers became increasingly alarmed for their own personal position. They were no doubt aware that already some five thousand persons had talked of making Jesus a King by force ( John 6:15). Said the Rulers: “What do we? For this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation” ( John 11:47-48). The high priest, Caiaphas, counseled: “It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.” But “not on the feast day , lest there be an uproar among the people” ( Matthew 26:5). “Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence into a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples. And the Jews’ passover was at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover. Then sought they for Jesus , and spake among themselves as they stood in the Temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the Feast?” (John 11:54-56). “NOT AT THE FEAST DAY” There were the obvious reasons for this decision. At the time of the feasts, particularly at the Feast of the Passover, the ordinary population of Jerusalem was vastly increased and the housing accommodation was quite inadequate for the influx of pilgrims. The overflow of visitors camped outside the city walls. These pilgrims were religious enthusiasts and every Jew was an intense nationalist in outlook. For three years the people had been in expectation and suspense; the atmosphere in Jerusalem was tense. In the Courts of the Temple, the worshippers anxiously inquired of each other “Think ye that He will not come to the feast?” The crowds were apparently on the tip-toe of excitement as if they expected that this would be the most momentous Passover Feast — as, indeed, it turned out to be— since the great deliverance was wrought in Egypt (1444 B.C.). Would Jesus prove His claim to the Messiahship by some great and spectacular sign and thus put an end to all speculations and doubts? In accordance with his usual practice, Pilate moved his headquarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem. He was thus on the spot ready to deal personally with any trouble that might arise. There had already been clashes between the Jews and Pilate, to which we shall refer later. But, although the Roman garrison was strengthened, it was vastly outnumbered by the populace, and any fanatical Zealot, laboring under deep religious and nationalist conviction, might easily be moved to call the attention of his compatriots to the fact; and once trouble started who could say where it would end? If the great Prophet and Teacher were arrested how great an uproar might not be caused? Moreover, the Feast was at hand, and according to the Pharisaic law it was not lawful for the Sanhedrin, either the Greater or the Lesser Sanhedrin, to sit on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of or during a festival (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 1.). Therefore, if Jesus were arrested at or just before the Feast, it would be necessary that He should be remanded in custody, in the “common prison” ( Acts 5:18) for nine days — until the Feast was over. Who could say what disturbances might not break out during that time and what attempts at rescue essayed either during the remand or when Jesus appeared in Court? No. Caution advised “No arrest at the Feast; wait until the masses of pilgrims have returned home.” But an event occurred which altered all their plans. To their joyful surprise, a few days before the Passover, Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples of Jesus, approached them with an offer to betray Jesus to them at the first convenient opportunity. To this they gladly agreed, and a foul bargain was struck. Thereafter the rulers waited in hourly expectation of the vital message, and no doubt all members of the Sanhedrin were warned to be prepared to answer a summons at a moment’s notice. On the Thursday night the message came, and orders were issued for Jesus to be arrested at the time and place indicated by the traitor.

JUDAS ISCARIOT “One of you is a devil” ( John 6:70). Thus spake Jesus of Judas. We bear that fact in mind in speaking of Judas. When Judas performed his devilish act of betrayal, all his Master said to him was: “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a KISS?” No outburst of anger. No upbraiding. No condemnation. Just a quiet, pained remark, making it clear to Judas that His Master thoroughly appreciated the true nature and quality of his pretended act of affection.

Later, when he saw that Jesus was condemned, Judas “went and hanged himself” ( Matthew 27:3-5). Surely, Jesus included Judas in His prayer, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”?

WARRANT FOR ARREST? Was a warrant issued by the High Priest or Annas or the Sanhedrin for the arrest of Jesus? The most important rule of Jewish Law about arrest was that whoever witnessed the commission of an offense or had personal knowledge of it was under a duty to bring the offender before the Court. By this means citizens assisted in the maintenance of law and order, and in the administration of justice. ( Deuteronomy 17:2-5 and Leviticus 5:1.) A somewhat similar rule obtains in English Law. “The common law of England grants to private persons the power of arrest in certain circumstances for the preservation of the peace. Thus, a private person is justified in arresting any of the King’s subjects if there be a breach of the peace actually continuing, or if he has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace which has been committed will be renewed. It is also clear that any bystander may, and ought, to interfere to part those who are breaking the peace, and to stay those who are going to join them.” “Any person present may arrest the affrayer at the moment of the affray, and detain him until his passion has cooled, and his desire to break the peace has ceased, and then deliver him to a police officer.” “Again, any private person, who was present at the time when a felony was committed, may and ought to arrest or aid in arresting the offender. He may even break into a private house in order to prevent the commission of a felony. Statute law has given further powers of arrest to a private individual in many cases.” (Odgers on The Common Law of England , Vol. 1, p. 47.) In a Jewish Court the trial did not usually commence with the preferring of a charge. The procedure was that the accused being before the Court, witnesses gave evidence of the matters complained of; if at least two witnesses corroborated each other about facts which disclosed the commission of an offense, a charge was then preferred; the offense disclosed by their depositions became the offense which the Court had to try; presumably it would be the task of the Scribes to formulate the charge indicated by the evidence and to make a note thereof in the Court records.

Until this was done there was no formal accusation or charge before the Court and the prisoner was not only deemed to be innocent but unaccused. In Jewish law, as in English law, there was a presumption of innocence, and the onus of proving the guilt of the accused always rested on those making the allegation. If the evidence of the “prosecution” failed to disclose an offense, then, as in English law, so in Jewish law, there was no case for the accused to answer; no one was entitled to question the accused in Court for the purpose of making him incriminate himself, and so make up for the shortcomings of the prosecution; in such cases the accused was “not guilty” and entitled to be discharged forthwith. But to return to the question of a “warrant.” Some commentators think that neither the High Priest nor the Sanhedrin had power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person suspected of having committed an offense.

It is, however, reasonably clear from the New Testament that such warrants were issued. Thus, in Acts 9:1-2, we read: “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way [i .e . of the Christian persuasion], whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”

Again, in Acts 26:10, when making his defense before King Agrippa, Paul said: “Many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests.” Yet again: “I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests.”

We have already seen, at page 30, that no one was to disobey the orders of the High Priest; that the High Priest was Chief Justice in Israel; and that it was the Greater Sanhedrin which sent the law forth to Israel. The Sanhedrin exercised not only judicial but executive and administrative functions, and obviously controlled the Jewish Police. Moreover, there is nothing incongruous in the idea of a Court issuing a warrant for the arrest of a person who is to be tried by that Court; this is done every day in English Courts of law. It is, indeed, difficult to appreciate how any system of criminal jurisprudence could be made to function without such powers.

Without them, how could a fugitive offender be apprehended and brought to justice? In England a person may be brought before a Magistrates’ Court in any one of three ways: either by arrest while in the act of committing an offense (the practice most favored by the Jews), or on a warrant or a summons issued by the magistrates who try the case.

There would therefore seem to be every justification for supposing that both the High Priest and the Sanhedrin had inherent jurisdiction to issue a warrant for the arrest of Jesus.

Further, consider the probabilities of the situation. Judas Iscariot presents himself to the chief priests, presumably at the very house of the High Priest, to announce his proposals. Would not Caiaphas and Annas be the first persons to be informed? Certainly Caiaphas was High Priest, but knowing what we do about Annas, is it likely that he would permit himself to be ignored on such an important manner? He was the power behind the Jewish State and the plans for the arrest having been made, is it not probable that either Annas or Caiaphas then and there wrote an order to the officer in charge of the Temple Guard ordering him to make the arrest at the time and place indicated by Judas? If such an order were issued, that order would be a “warrant” for the arrest of Jesus. In view of the fact that “Jesus was taken first before Annas” is it not clear that if he did not actually sign the warrant or give an oral order for the arrest, he, at any rate, was fully conversant with all that was being done? So far as power to issue a summons was concerned, the case of Herod of Galilee, reported by Josephus in Ant. 14. 9, makes it clear that in practice the High Priest did issue summonses, and that they were obeyed, even by persons of exalted rank. That case also reveals the interesting fact that an accused person on arraignment was expected to present himself before the Court with due humility and clad in a black and mourning garment.

Josephus, after mentioning that the chief men of the Jews were in fear of Herod because he had slain one Hezekias and others, says that they complained to the High Priest, Hyrcanus, who was also king, that Herod “hath thereby transgressed our law, which hath forbidden to slay any man, even though he were a wicked man, unless he had been first condemned to suffer death by the Sanhedrin; yet hath he been so insolent as to do this, and that without any authority from thee. Hyrcanus was so moved by these complaints, THAT HE SUMMONED HEROD TO COME TO HIS TRIAL, for what was charged upon him. Accordingly he came.” But the insolent and truculent manner in which Herod answered the summons and appeared before the Court, accompanied as he was by some of his soldiers, caused a member of the Sanhedrin, one Seme as, “a righteous man he was,” to make an oration which included the following illuminating observations: “O you that are assessors with me, and O thou that art our King, I neither have ever myself known such a case, nor do I suppose that any of you can name its parallel, that one who is called to take his trial by us ever stood in such a manner before us; but everyone, whosoever he be, that comes to be tried by this Sanhedrin, presents himself in a submissive manner, and like one that is in fear of himself, and that endeavors to move us to compassion, with his hair disheveled, and in a black and mourning garment; but this admirable man Herod, who is accused of murder, and called to answer so heavy an accusation, stands here clothed in purple, and with the hair of his head finely trimmed, and with his armed men about him, that if we shall condemn him by our law, he may slay us, and by overbearing justice, may himself escape death.” In the foregoing circumstances it Would seem that the High Priest, acting as such or in the name of the Sanhedrin had power to issue either a warrant or a summons.

WHAT OFFICIALS ARRESTED JESUS? Was Jesus arrested solely by the Jewish Police, viz . the Temple Guard, such as were sent to arrest Him on the previous occasion (John 7:32) or did Roman soldiers assist? Much has been written on this point and commentators are not agreed. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not suggest the use of Romans, but there is a word used by John which causes some writers to think that a Roman tribune, or officer, was present. It is noteworthy that no one suggests that Romans were employed on the previous occasion.

It would seem that there are good reasons for thinking that only Jewish officials were engaged in the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Jesus was not arrested upon any definite charge. If Roman aid had been sought, Pilate, or the Roman officer responsible for making the arrest, would want to know what the charge was. Pilate, like his predecessors and successors in office, was notoriously irritated by the constant squabbles among the Jews about the interpretation of their law; he declined to intermeddle in such matters. If the Rulers of the Jews asked for Roman assistance in arresting a Jew on a charge of blasphemy, he would almost inevitably reply “see ye to it.” Indeed, when Jesus eventually appeared before him, his first reaction was to say to the Jews, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law” ( John 18:31). Moreover, once they had disclosed to Pilate their intention to arrest Jesus, the fate of Jesus would not rest entirely with them; and if they entertained the idea of doing away with Jesus themselves in defiance of the Roman edict not to put any man to death, their plans might be frustrated by going to the Romans for assistance. It appears that it was not until the Grand Consultation held by the Rulers of the Jews “when the morning was come” ( Matthew 27:1), after Jesus had been condemned, that the decision was taken to bring Jesus before Pilate. Up to that time, the Rulers may have had it in mind to put Jesus to death themselves as they subsequently did in the case of James the brother of Jesus (see p. 28). Of course, the Jewish Rulers knew well enough “it is not lawful for us to put any man to death” ( John 18:31), but they sometimes took a chance and ignored the Roman edict, always with disastrous consequences to the High Priest of the day, as we have already seen and as Annas well knew. But the strongest reason for supposing that the Rulers did not consult Pilate about the arrest surely is that there was absolutely no need to do so; it was clear from what Judas Iscariot had told them that there would be no difficulty at all in arresting Jesus in the dead of night, in the open, and when He would be alone except for His eleven disciples. THE JEWISH PROCEEDINGS Many and varied opinions have been expressed concerning the part played by Annas, the order and nature of the Jewish proceedings, particularly the two meetings of the Rulers, the constitution of the tribunals, and the system of law in force at the time and in fact applied.

We make a brief summary of some of those views. The Italian lawyer, Rosadi, appears to take the view that Annas questioned Jesus while the Sanhedrin was being summoned; that “the condemnation of the Sanhedrin was pronounced by night” (p. 158), that the second meeting was held “simply to refer the case to Pilate” (p. 160), and that “the Talmudic compilations do represent the Mosaic law such as. it had become in the last days of the Jewish State” (p. 167). Klausnet (pp. 334-336) says: “ Mark 10:23 and the genuine part of Josephus’s paragraph about Jesus (of which the bulk is spurious) assert that Jesus was delivered ‘to the Gentiles’ or ‘to Pilate’ by the ‘Chief Priests and Scribes’ or by ‘the principal men among us.’ These statements are all of them comprehensible if we assume that the Sanhedrin only carried out a preliminary inquiry and, when the charge was proved against Jesus, delivered Him to Pilate, who alone conducted the trial proper and passed sentence. Thus we see why the procedure of the ‘trial’ as conducted by the Sanhedrin does not conform with the details of procedure laid down in the Mishnah; was not a trial but only a preliminary judicial investigation and, as such, it was altogether fair and legal. “It is gradually being recognized, however, that the real reason why the Mishnah rules are at variance with the system in vogue in the time of Jesus, is that between the two periods (the time of Jesus and the time of the Rabbi Yehuda he-Nasi) there intervened two hundred years and many and great changes. The trial of Jesus was not in accordance with the spirit of the Pharisees, but of the Sadducees and Boethuseans (then the majority in the Sanhedrin), to which the High Priest, the president of the Sanhedrin, belonged.” Lord Shaw says (p. 8): “Jesus Christ underwent a double trial.

Two great and independent systems of criminal jurisprudence were called into play to determine His fate.” Lord Shaw does not distinguish between the two meetings of the Sanhedrin, and treats of only one; he also assumes that the Sanhedrin was bound by the “Mishnah Law,” which, he says, was admittedly in force (pp. 11, 12).

Dr. Edersheim (pp. 579-584) says: “We know absolutely nothing of what passed in the house of Annas—if, indeed, anything passed, except that Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas.” “Christ was not tried and sentenced in a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. terrible as the proceedings of that night were, they even seem a sort of concession—as if the Sanhedrists would fain have found some legal and moral justification for what they had determined to do.” As to the meeting after daybreak, he says: “It is not unreasonable to suppose that some who would not take part in deliberations which were virtually a judicial murder might, once the resolution was taken, feel in Jewish casuistry absolved from guilt in advising how the informal sentence might best be carried into effect. It was this, and not the question of Christ’s guilt, which formed the subject of deliberation on that early morning.”

Mr. Taylor Innes, the Scottish advocate, (p. 23), says: “It is extremely difficult to decide whether this examination by the ‘High Priest’ was made by Annas or by Caiaphas. It appears in any case to have been wholly illegal. There is no difficulty in arriving at the order of the historical transactions. The visit to Annas and the transfer to Caiaphas came first, with the interrogation of the Accused by one or other of the High Priests.

About this time came the denial of Peter. while some time must have been consumed in sending for witnesses and summoning either the whole Council or some members. That the whole Council did not meet at night is unquestionable; that a certain number of them were present by night with Caiaphas is equally clear. Assuming that there was a final and formal meeting of the whole Sanhedrin at its usual morning hour, it is barely possible that the vivid scene of the adjuration, confession and sentence took place before it.” He goes on to say that it is much more likely that that scene took place earlier and that that earlier meeting was preceded by a still earlier transactions the examination of witnesses and the deliberation on their evidence—and that this must have taken place some time during the night. He expresses the view that, whatever the true order and nature of the proceedings, they were absolutely illegal, being contrary to the Mishnah law, which he holds was in force. The French scholar, Mons. E. De Pressense (pp. 508-510), says that Annas “plays in the trial of Jesus the part of an examining magistrate.” “The trial of Jesus was gone through according to form in the presence of the Sanhedrin, presided over by Caiaphas. The endeavor was to establish, if possible, a ground of accusation which might ensure a sentence of capital punishment from the Roman Governor, in whom alone was vested the power of life and death.” De Pressense treats of only one meeting of the Sanhedrin. Finally, we would mention that one view, widely held today, is that the meeting of the Sanhedrin held after daybreak, was of the Greater Sanhedrin; that the proceedings during the night were in the nature of a personal investigation by the High Priest, assisted by some members of the Sanhedrin; and that the purpose of this investigation was to expedite the trial by the Greater Sanhedrin in the morning. Further, that because the Sadducees dominated the Sanhedrin and repudiated the Pharisaic “Mishnah” law, that system of law was not in force at the time of the trial. THE RULERS’ PLAN As we have seen, from the time Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the Rulers of the Jews conspired to put Jesus to death. It is abundantly clear from the Gospel narratives, that there was no question of holding a careful and judicial investigation into the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah.THE DECISION WAS TO KILL JESUS. This fact cannot be over emphasized, for it dominates the events which took place after the arrest and fixes the true character of the so-called Jewish “trials.” In our view these trials were merely part of the machinery employed to kill Jesus. The Jewish plan seems to have been to arrest Jesus, to stage a trial before the Sanhedrin; to induce Jesus when before the Court formally to make His claim to be the Messiah, immediately to denounce the claim as blasphemy; thereupon to condemn Him as being worthy of death and then to kill Him. By this means the Jewish people would be left under the impression that the great question which had agitated their minds for three long years had been formally investigated and adjudicated upon once for all in the Supreme Court from which “the law went forth to all Israel.” Thus the nation would be presented with a decision which was apparently clothed with all the weight and sanction of the law and the Rulers would hope to secure for their action, as they did, in fact, secure, the almost unanimous support of all shades of Jewish religious and political opinion — a support which has continued to this day.

ANNAS “And led him away to Annas first ” ( John 18:13). After His arrest Jesus was taken before Annas first. Why to Annas when, in fact, Caiaphas was the officially appointed High Priest recognized by the Procurator as such? In trying to form a reasonable answer to this question it is helpful to know what manner of man Annas was’ his reputation, his position in life, his outlook, the way fortune had dealt with him and, most important of all, his hopes and his fears both for the future of the Jewish nation and of his own class. The House of Annas was the most powerful in all Jewry and was detested by the common people. Annas, who was a Sadducee, was appointed High Priest in A.D. 7, and deposed by the Roman Procurator Gratus in A.D. for exceeding the jurisdiction permitted him by the Occupying Power. He was successful in getting no less than five of his sons appointed to the High Priesthood, to say nothing of his son-in-law Caiaphas and one grandson. He appears to have been a far more forceful and powerful character than Caiaphas. He was the father of the Annas (or Ananus) who, when High Priest in A.D. 62, executed James the brother of Jesus, for which act he was deposed by Agrippa after only three months of office.

Some commentators think that Annas and Caiaphas either lived (as the Oriental custom of families was) in the same house or adjoining houses.

There seen as to be little doubt that at the time of the trial of Jesus, Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod were all residing within a “stone’s throw” of each other. As the chief Sadducee of his day, Annas would be particularly angered at the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead and at the act of Jesus in driving the money-changers and cattle-dealers from the Temple precincts. The House of Annas derived much of its wealth from the business side of the Temple activities. The cleansing of the Temple was a direct interference by Jesus with the authority of Annas and his class. He and his like were filled with envy at the hold Jesus was obtaining over the people. Annas took full advantage of the fact that, although he had been deposed by the Romans, the Jews regarded a High Priest as appointed for life. After his deposition he continued to be the power behind the Jewish State. He would be in full accord with — if, indeed, he did not instigate— the advice of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin: “It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people.” He and his relations did very well out of the concordat reached with the Romans on the banishment of Archelaus in A.D. 6, and he would be the last to want this convenient arrangement disturbed. As a Sadducee he had little sympathy with the Messianic idea. In the meantime his son-in-law, Caiaphas, was a useful tool in his hands. What we know of Annas makes it easy to believe that when the unexpected news came that Judas Iscariot was prepared to betray his Master, he would have a considerable say in the arrangements for the arrest and would give orders that Jesus was to be brought before him immediately the arrest had been effected.

Annas appears to have questioned Jesus but never to have made any attempt to discover whether or not His claim to be the Messiah was well founded. In view of his leading position in the State, a special responsibility rested upon him before God and the people; but, like the rest of his co-religionists, he was smitten with the “partial blindness” and “ignorance” referred to by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans.

Annas should have been the first to examine and seek to understand the statement of Jesus: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17). He must have been well aware of the fact that Jesus had bidden the people to “beware of the leaven of the Sadduccees” ( Matthew 16:6), and would know that whatever might be the nature of the kingdom which Jesus taught He had come to establish, there would be no place of honor in it for him and his colleagues while they persisted in their way of life. He therefore realized with Caiaphas that he stood to lose all that he held dear in this life (and as a Sadducee he had no belief in another) if the Ministry of Jesus succeeded, and he and Caiaphas were undoubtedly the ringleaders in the campaign to put Jesus to death. The Gospel records do not state expressly whether it was Annas or Caiaphas who presided over the Sanhedrin before which Jesus appeared.

We should, however, have little doubt on this point if we recall that John expressly mentions that Caiaphas was the High Priest and that the questions were put by the High Priest; that the High Priest (and not an ex- High Priest) was the supreme Judge in Israel; that only the Greater Sanhedrin could try a false prophet; that the High Priest was the President of the Greater Sanhedrin and the one who by Jewish law and tradition presided over the deliberations of that Tribunal.

CAIAPHAS “Annas had sent Jesus bound unto Caiaphas the high priest ” ( John 18:24).

Historians and commentators do not paint a flattering picture of Joseph Caiaphas, the man upon whom devolved a responsibility unequaled in the experience of any other Jewish Judge.

He was appointed High Priest by the Procurator Valedus Gratus in A.D. and deposed by Vitellius in A.D. 36, after the recall of Pilate to Rome. He was succeeded in office by his brother-in-law, Ananus (Ant. 20. 9. 1.). “Of all men mentioned in the crucifixion records, Caiaphas is surely the most despicable. He was that not uncommon phenomenon—a man of low character in a high place. In religion he found, not a conviction, but a career; and so there fell upon him the nemesis of those who traffic in high things, without making to them an adequate spiritual response” (Hastings).

Caiaphas was in once when Pilate landed in Palestine in A.D. 26 to assume the reins of government, and, as before mentioned, remained High Priest throughout the whole of Pilate’s tenure of office, though this fact is far from meaning that during that time there were no clashes between Pilate and the Jews; on the contrary, there were many, but they did not bring about the downfall of Caiaphas.

It is said that Pilate and Caiaphas were good friends. It is noteworthy that no mention is made of the presence of Caiaphas in the Praetorium when Jesus was before Pilate. But one would hardly expect the head of the Jewish State to attend personally a trial in the Roman Court. The account in Acts 25:1-27 of the trial of the Apostle Paul suggests that whereas the High Priest might appear personally before the Roman Governor to make representations about the trial of a case, he would not personally conduct the case or be present at the trial before the Procurator. Nevertheless, by means of his colleagues who were present, the High Priest could strongly influence the presentation of the case before the Roman Judge, and this is what happened while Jesus was before the Roman Court.

JESUS BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN It would seem that Jesus, having been arrested about midnight and taken before Annas, the messenger of the High Priest must have hurried through the moonlit streets calling the Judges to the midnight Court. Was the messenger supplied with a list of the names of those who were to be summoned? If so, was the name of Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, or the name of Joseph of Arimathea, who later that same day begged the body of Jesus from Pilate, on that list? And what of the wise Gamaliel, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles? No doubt the five sons of Annas, all members of the Sanhedrin, were not overlooked. But whatever care Caiaphas or Annas may have taken, if they took any care at all, about the selection of the names of those to form the Court to “try” the Accused, they could not be sure that their plan to kill Jesus would not be frustrated at the last moment.

According to the Pharisaic rules subsequently embodied in the Mishnah, the Lesser Sanhedrin of three-and-twenty Judges could lawfully try a capital case; blasphemy was not one of the offenses specially reserved for trial by the Greater Sanhedrin; therefore it would seem that a charge of blasphemy could be lawfully tried by the Lesser Sanhedrin. But it is difficult to take the view that it was the Lesser Sanhedrin which tried Jesus before daybreak, because the midnight court was in fact presided over by the High Priest, and the High Priest was the President of the Greater Sanhedrin, not the Lesser Sanhedrin. It was not until the very end of the trial that the charge of blasphemy emerged, up to then it would seem that Jesus was being tried on the basis that the accusation was that He was a “false prophet “—and a false prophet could only be tried by the Greater Sanhedrin (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 1. 5). Matthew and Mark, referring to the night trial, expressly state that it took place before “the whole council,” the New Testament expression for the Greater Sanhedrin; finally, in view of the importance of tile matters at issue and, above all, of the necessity, from the Ruler’s point of view, of satisfying the national conscience that everything was done in due form of law—and by the highest tribunal in the land — surely the High Priest and his colleagues, even though they had pre-determined the result of the trial, would bring Jesus before the Supreme Court, from which “the law went forth to all Israel “? A reasonable view of the order of events would seem to be that while Annas, ex-High Priest, was satisfying his insatiable curiosity by questioning Jesus, the Judges were being summoned; that the “midnight” Sanhedrin which “convicted” Jesus was the Greater Sanhedrin of one-and-seventy Judges; that “When the morning was come” ( Matthew 27:1) Jesus appeared before a great Consultative Assembly (see p. 80, where this Assembly is discussed in greater detail), before which body He reaffirmed His claim to be the Messiah and “the Son of God “; and that this Assembly decided to bring Jesus before Pilate. THE ORAL OR “MISHNAH” LAW In view of the decision of the Sanhedrin to arrest and bring Jesus to “trial” for the express purpose of putting Him to death and, as we suggest, using a colorable imitation of a genuine trial as part of the machinery for effecting that purpose and satisfying the national conscience, questions such as the constitution of the “Court” which carried out the “trial” and the system of law which was applied, become of little importance. But since many hold the view that there was a formal trial and that the Mishnah traditions “were admittedly in force as law” (Lord Shaw), it seems desirable to try to ascertain what the system of criminal jurisprudence was and to what extent it was applied, or purported to be applied, at the Jewish trial, real or pretended. Moreover, whatever opinions may be held as to whether or not the Mishnah law was in force at that period, the fact remains that at the “trial” of Jesus the Court did follow, or purported to follow, some of the Pharisaic Mishnah rules. Is it not a reasonable inference that if both Pharisees and Sadducees on the Bench were united in a determination that the trial should have one result, and one result only, namely, the death of the Accused, that for once they would not dispute among themselves as to the enforceability or otherwise of such parts of the Oral Law and procedure as were relevant to the issue before them? (Before considering the Mishnah law in detail it should be mentioned that some take the view that the Mishnah represents in many cases not what the Jewish law was during the life of Jesus but what the Rabbis thought should be the case if a Jewish State should be re-established.)

Assuming that the proceedings before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin purported to be a formal legal trial, convened and held in due course of both the Written and the Oral Law, then it was void ab initio because it was held by night. Assuming that the proceedings were not a trial but only a judicial investigation by the High Priest and some of his colleagues, then the condemnation of Jesus was without legal effect, as being without lawful authority; for only the Greater or Lesser Sanhedrin could convict of a capital offense.

We will now consider some of the Mishnah rules and observe to what extent, if at all, they were applied.

MISHNAH RULES The Mishnah divided cases into two main classes: capital or non-capital. “In non-capital cases they held the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night. In capital cases they held the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime . In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day; but a verdict of conviction not until the following day . Therefore , trials may not be hem on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival ” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 1.). The Trial was a remarkable exhibition of “straining out gnats and swallowing camels.” Holding the Trial by night was the largest camel; while the tiniest gnat was the decision to reject the testimony of the two witnesses who purported to give Jesus’ alleged observations about the destruction of the Temple; they rejected that evidence, not because they thought it to be inaccurate or deliberately false—for they had no objection to false evidence ( Matthew 26:59-60): (they subsequently perjured themselves before Pilate by accusing Jesus of “forbidding tribute to Caesar”) — but because the witnesses “agreed not together” as required by the letter of the law (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 5. 4). The formal agreement of the witnesses was of more importance to them than the truth of what was said. The rule was: “If they (the witnesses) contradict one another, whether during the inquiries or the cross-examination, their evidence becomes invalid” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 5. 2).

It is interesting to note that in English law corroboration is required only in a limited number of cases. In Jewish law corroboration was essential in all cases. In English law an accused may be convicted on the testimony of a single witness; but in Jewish law there could be no conviction except on the testimony of at least two witnesses, and those two had to “agree together.”

ARRANGEMENT OF COURT “The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing floor so that they might all see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the Judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says there were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words both of them that favored acquittal and of them that favored conviction. “Before them sat three rows of disciples of the Sanhedrin, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint another as a Judge, they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second; and they chose yet another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 3, 4). The Court called to try Jesus having assembled, the first duty of the High Priest was to be sure that each Judge possessed the necessary qualifications to adjudicate.

QUALIFICATION OF JUDGES TO TRY CAPITAL CASES “In a capital case only those members of the Sanhedrin who were priests, Levites and Israelites that may give their daughters in marriage into the priestly stock,” were qualified to sit as Judges (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 2).

PROCEDURE “Non-capital and capital cases are alike in examination and inquiry, for it is written, Ye shall have one manner of law” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 1; Leviticus 24:22).

PREFERRING THE CHARGE “At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6; Mishnah , Makkoth, 1. 7; Leviticus 5:1).

PROVING AND ADMONISHING WITNESSES “They (the Court) brought them in and admonished them; then put them all forth and kept back the chief among them. Afterward they brought in the second witness and proved him. If their words were found to agree together the Judges discussed the matter,” i .e . considered what offense, if any, was disclosed and what the charge should be. “How did they admonish the witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, saying: Perchance ye will say what is but supposition or hearsay or at secondhand, or ye may say in yourselves, we have heard it from a man that is trustworthy. Or perchance ye do not know that we shall prove you by examination and inquiry? Know ye, moreover, that capital cases are not as non-capital cases; in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement; but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him that is wrongfully condemned and the blood of his posterity that should have been born to him at the end of the world. For so we have found it with Cain that slew his brother, for it is written ‘the bloods of thy brother cry.’ It says not ‘the blood of thy brother, but ‘the bloods of thy brother’ — his blood and the blood of his posterity. Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man hath caused a single soul to perish from Israel, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul from Israel, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world. And if perchance ye would say, Why should we be at these pains? — was it not once written, He being a witness whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then shall he bear his iniquity?” ( Leviticus 5:1; Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 5).

PENALTY FOR FALSE EVIDENCE “Ye shall do unto him as he thought to do unto his neighbor” ( Deuteronomy 19:19). The rule was a life for a life and a fine for a fine, etc. “False witnesses are put to death only after judgment has been given.

Scripture says ‘ life for life,’ thus they are not put to death until judgment of death has been given against him that was falsely accused” (Mishnah , Makkoth 1. 6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Deuteronomy 19:21). THE DEATH PENALTY “The Court had power to inflict four kinds of death penalty: stoning, burning, beheading and strangling” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 7. 1).

If a trial ended with the death sentence, then, before the Romans deprived the Sanhedrin of the fight to execute a condemned prisoner, the two chief witnesses for the prosecution were the two chief executioners. In a Jewish trial of a capital charge the witnesses possessed an importance unknown to English law, for they were the attesters, testifiers and executioners.

EXECUTION OF SENTENCE “When sentence of stoning has been passed they take him forth to stone him. The place of stoning was outside, far away from the Court, as it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp ( Leviticus 24:14). One man stands at the door of the Court with a towel in his hand, and another, mounted on a horse, far away from him but near enough to see him. If in the Court one said,: I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal: that man waves the towel and the horse runs and stops him that was going forth to be stoned. Even if he himself said: I have somewhat to argue in favor of my acquittal,’ they must bring him back, be it four times or five, provided that there is anything of substance in his words. If then they found him innocent they set him free; otherwise he goes forth to be stoned. A herald goes forth before him calling ‘Such-a-one the son of sucha- one, is going forth to be stoned for that he committed such or such an offense. Such-a-one and such-a-one are witnesses against him. If any man knoweth anything in favor of his acquittal let him come and plead it.’ “The place of stoning was twice the height of the man. One of the witnesses knocked him down on his loins. If he straightway died, that sufficed; but if not the second witness took the stone and dropped it on his heart. If he straightway died, that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned by all Israel, for it is written, the hands of the witnesses shall be the first upon him to be put to death and afterwards the hand of all the people” ( Deuteronomy 17:7; Mishnah , Sanhedrin 6. 1, 2, 3, 4).

HANGING “The Sages say: ‘None is hanged save the blasphemer and the idolater. His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is a curse against God” ( Deuteronomy 21:23; Mishnah , Sanhedrin 6. 4.).

CONFESSIONS BY ACCUSED Most commentators quote Salvador, the famous Jewish lawyer, as authority for the proposition: “Our law condemns no one to death on his own confession.” THE EVIDENCE The illegal proceedings seem to have commenced with the outward show of proper legal formality. Witnesses were called in manner provided by Jewish law, although it is not quite clear that they were called before Jesus had pointed out that there was no evidence before the Court that He had done any wrong. “Ask them that heard Me; they know what I said unto them.” “If I have done evil bear witness of the evil.” These observations could have been made either before any witnesses, or after the last of them, had been called without any result.

What took place is typical of the action of the Rulers of the Jews at this period of their history. Whatever the true nature of the proceedings, they ignored the substance and spirit of the law, but observed, or purported to observe, such of the laws and rules of procedure as suited their purpose and conveniently turned a blind eye to the rest. “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death” ( Matthew 26:59). This may mean either that those referred to deliberately sought for witnesses who would give evidence which to their certain knowledge was false, or witnesses who would give evidence of actual statements they had heard Jesus make and which would be susceptible of a false interpretation. On either view such conduct in Judges staggers the imagination. The enormity of the offense, grave in any case, was enhanced by the fact that every member of Court knew the penalties attaching to perjury. Moreover, such reprehensible action was the more nauseating in view of the solemn terms in which each witness was adjured (or sworn) before giving evidence. For we assume the witnesses were duly sworn (see p. 63 for the terms of the adjuration). The High Priest and his colleagues well knew that at the trial for life, a false witness put his own life in peril (see p. 64). What are we to think of a Tribunal, the members of which regarded themselves as the representatives of God on earth, administering His laws in the Judgment Seat once occupied by Moses, resorting to such practices? Was there ever a chance of Jesus having a fair trial? But Judges who had determined on the death of the Accused before the “trial” commenced, could be guilty of any conduct, however infamous. A possible key to their conduct is that they were so blinded by religious bigotry that they persuaded themselves that if they killed Jesus they would be “doing God service” ( John 16:2). But the remarkable thing is that notwithstanding the ease with which their consciences permitted them to commit one gross irregularity after another, they rejected the evidence of the “false witnesses,” giving as their ostensible reason that those witnesses “agreed not together” as required by the Mishnah law. A conspiracy to put false evidence before a Court of Justice usually ends in disaster for the conspirators, especially when they have to make their plans in a hurry. We are not told the nature of this evidence. By rejecting evidence which was unimportant from their point of view they may have hoped to create the appearance of impartiality while their true intent was to obtain evidence of a matter of great gravity, rig. that Jesus had been heard to claim to be the “Messiah.”

Then came two witnesses in particular and, unlike the case of the other witnesses we are told what these two said; apparently they gave evidence which, although inaccurate, they believed to be true. Yet, says Mark, “neither so did their witness agree together.” Now, the difference in the evidence of these two witnesses was very slight; in substance there was no divergence. Apparently one of them attributed to Jesus the words: “I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in three days.” The version of the other was: “I will destroy this Temple, which is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.” This evidence could reasonably be construed as disclosing a prima facie case of sorcery or sacrilege. Once during his public ministry Jesus had been accused by the Pharisees of performing miracles by the power of Beelzebub ( Matthew 12:24), a Satanic agency. The destruction of the Temple would be sacrilege and a claim to be able to rebuild it in three days sorcery. The punishment for both sorcery and sacrilege was death. Yet this evidence was not what the Sanhedrin wanted. They wanted to hear evidence about a much more serious matter than that of a fantastic threat to destroy the Temple or a claim to be able to rebuild it in three days. So on the highly technical ground that “the witnesses agreed not together” they rejected this evidence. In doing so they followed, or purported to follow, the Pharisaic Mishnah law. Of course, as we know from John 2:18-21, what Jesus in fact said had been misunderstood, as were many of His sayings. “Then answered the Jews and unto him, What sign showest thou unto us.? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty-and-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” No doubt when Jesus made this statement, his hearers genuinely misunderstood Him and thought He was referring to the Sanctuary, for when He was on the Cross they cast the saying in His teeth ( Mark 15:29-30). THE CASE BREAKS DOWN The case for the prosecution had now reached a stage at which no evidence had been accepted which justified the preferring of a charge, capital or otherwise; the accusers, namely, the witnesses, had failed to provide a case for Jesus to answer; they had not discharged the onus placed upon their shoulders by law. In particular—no evidence had been given that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah or the “Son of God.” It was, however, common knowledge that Jesus made this claim and this was the real reason why He had been arrested. The Court wanted evidence that Jesus had made the claim so that they might role upon it and denounce it once for all. The Mishnah rules For the trial of a charge of blasphemy are set out on p. 74. No witness had given the evidence there indicated. In these circumstances it was the duty of the High Priest to announce that no charge had been made out and that the Accused would be discharged.

Instead of discharging Jesus, the High Priest took to questioning Him; his Pharisaic colleagues apparently raised no objection and did not insist on the Mishnah rules concerning blasphemy being observed. This questioning was in defiance of the fundamental practice of Jewish Written Law, which required the witnesses to establish the charge, and of the rule: “Our law condemns no one to death on his own confession.”

We have to look at St. John’s Gospel for details of the questioning. John is generally regarded as being the disciple who “went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest” ( John 18:15), and if this is so we have an account of the proceedings by an eye-witness. “The high priest” (Caiaphas, not Annas, was the High Priest; it is necessary to bear this in mind when reading John’s account, lest the questioning be attributed to Annas), “asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.” Jesus replied by reminding the High Priest of the Hebrew law that a charge should be proved by witnesses. Such a reply would be particularly galling to the Supreme Judge in Israel. “Why askest thou me?

Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I have said.” Thereupon Jesus was struck by an officer of the Court. “Answerest thou the High Priest so?” Jesus said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” This questioning seems to have concluded with tile great and supreme question in which the High Priest incorporated “the solemn adjuration.”

Caiaphas, apparently determined to obtain evidence on which to found a conviction for blasphemy, threw all semblance of law to the winds: “I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” It seems obvious from what followed that the question was not put from a genuine desire to know the truth, but in order to obtain the reply he knew he would receive and to use that reply as a colorable justification for a conviction. This was the great climax of the trial. Let us examine the incident. Some think that Caiaphas was legally entitled to put this question and that Jesus was bound by law to answer.

Now, if this question had been put to Jesus after at least two witnesses had testified that they had heard Jesus say that He was “the Son of God” no exception could be taken to it; for their evidence would have prepared the ground for a charge of blasphemy and provided a case for Jesus to answer — in which case the onus would then have been on Jesus to justify the statement; if He justified it He would be entitled to be acquitted; if not, a conviction would be lawful by Jewish law. But at the time the question was put no such evidence had been given : the case sought to be made against Jesus had failed; there was, in fact, NO CHARGE BEFORE THE COURT; there was no case for the Accused to answer, and He was entitled to be set free then and there. The Judge was not entitled to make up for the shortcomings of the prosecution by questioning the Accused. It may help to understand this point if we refer to the procedure in English law. There is a sense in which it is true to say that an accused person must answer any question put to him by a Judge or Magistrate. But there are certain limitations upon this general rule. The question must always be one which is permitted by law, and questions may not be asked of an accused until the case has reached a stage at which it is proper to put them. In an English Court that proper time is after the case for the prosecution has closed; closed with a case having been made out for the accused to answer; and the accused has voluntarily entered the witness-box and submitted himself for questioning. But if the prosecution fails to make out a prima facie case, no fight to question the accused arises either by a Judge or a Magistrate or anybody else. So in the case of the Trial of Jesus. At the time Caiaphas put his great question to Jesus, his action in doing so was unlawful because the moment in the trial when he had the fight to put the question had not arrived, for the evidence had failed to disclose any prima facie case of blasphemy; at that moment there was no tryable matter before the Court and no case for Jesus to answer. THE GREAT ADMISSION Illegal though the question was, it was immediately answered, and in the affirmative. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, it was really because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God that He was before the Court. It was, indeed, remarkable that no such evidence had been given. The great moment in the trial had come. Jesus at once made the great confession and claim. He was the Christ, the Son of God. Immediately, with that devotion to ritual and seeming reverence for the “Mishnah law” (see p. 75) he had ignored so obviously throughout the proceedings, the High Priest rent his garments, saying, “He hath spoken blasphemy, what need have we of witnesses? What think ye?”

We observe that if the Scribes, who were so expert at legal quibbles, had done their duty to keep the Judges “in remembrance” of the law, they would have advised the Court that there was every need of witnesses because (a) none of the Pharisaic rules governing the trial of cases of alleged blasphemy had been observed, and (b) the Court was trying the Accused on the basis that He had committed an offense before He came into Court (of which there was no evidence) and not for something said by the accused in Court , and (c) “Our law condemns no one on his own confession.”

It is interesting to note the attitude of Jesus to the all-important question of Caiaphas compared with His attitude to the evidence of the witnesses. To the evidence of the “false witnesses” He answered nothing. “Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?” But Jesus held His peace. But to the great question, the legality or illegality of which was and is of no moment compared with its tremendous import, He did not remain silent. His hour had come and He made the great confession and claim. “Thou hast said” (Matthew); “I am” (Mark); “Ye say that I am” (Luke). “HE HATH SPOKEN BLASPHEMY” In English law “it is a misdemeanor to speak, or to write and publish, any profane words vilifying or ridiculing God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Old or New Testament, or Christianity in general, with intent to shock and insult believers, or to pervert or mislead the ignorant or unwary. This intent is an essential element in the crime, and is generally inferred from the intemperate and scurrilous language of the accused. The disputes of learned men, and publications discussing with decency questions as to Christianity and the Scriptures are not punishable as blasphemy. If the decencies of controversy are observed even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked. A man is free to teach what he likes as to religious matters, even if it is unbelief, but in considering whether he has exceeded the permitted limits, the place where he speaks and the people to whom he speaks, have to be taken into account. If he is arguing for an honest belief in a doctrine or a non-doctrine to which he is attached, he is not guilty of publishing blasphemous words; but if, not for the sake of argument, he makes a scurrilous attack on doctrine, which the majority of persons hold to be true, in a public place where passers-by may have their ears offended and where young people may come, he renders himself liable to the law of blasphemous libel” (Odgers on The Common Law of England , vol. 1, p. 206). In Jewish law blasphemy was the profane use of the name of the Deity. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” ( Exodus 20:7). But this was not the whole of the law of blasphemy. The proceedings which preceded the murder of Stephen, recorded in Acts 6:1-15, Acts 7:1-60, make it clear that the Jewish law had some points of similarity with English law.

Stephen was accused of attacking Moses, the national religion, the established religious institutions, the religious customs of the Jews, saying that Jesus would destroy the Temple, and generally with trying to pervert or mislead the ignorant or unwary. All this they alleged was “blasphemy,” i .e . “constructive blasphemy.” Thus they said: “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and law. For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” The Jewish State was in theory a theocracy; God was the invisible head of the State; God was the God of the Jews — all others were outside the pale; they were the Chosen Race; their laws were divine, not man-made laws; the law of God was also the law of their State; their institutions were also divinely ordained; their rulers were the representatives on earth of their invisible King. “Moses received the law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogues” (Mishnah , Aboth. I. I). The members of the Sanhedrin “sat in Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:1-39). When Jesus claimed to be “the Son of the Blessed” or “the Son of God,” He did not use, and they did not understand Him to use, the expression merely in the sense in which they, the Jews, as a community, regarded themselves as “the sons of the living God” ( Hosea 1:10); or in which the Apostle John later referred to all Christians as “sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”; or as the Apostle wrote in Romans 8:14 : “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Nor did they understand Jesus to be claiming to be the Second Person in the Holy Trinity : the Jews had no belief in or knowledge of ” the Holy Trinity ”: to them God was One and Indivisible . They were monotheists. Even after the Day of Pentecost when the Apostle Paul visited Ephesus he found certain disciples there who had “not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” ( Acts 19:2). The expression “Son of God” did not mean to the High Priest and Sanhedrin all that it means to Christians today; they did not expect their Messiah to be God Himself, “manifest in the flesh.” The High Priest and Sanhedrin understood Jesus to be claiming a unique relationship with God; to be claiming to be “God’s anointed” ( Psalms 2:2; Isaiah 11:2) — the premier Jew, the “Messiah,” the “Christ” ( John 1:41); and this they regarded, and tightly if the claim were false, as an insulting and treasonable activity against God and, therefore, the crime of blasphemy. In these circumstances it was their bounden duty to investigate the truth or falsity of the claim. This they signally failed to do. There was no investigation into the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah and “the Son of God.” As soon as Jesus made the claim, the High Priest rent his clothes, “and they all condemned him to be guilty of death.” “And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him and say unto him, Prophesy” ( Mark 14:65).

There were certain Mishnah rules for the trial of a charge of blasphemy and certain specific questions had to be put to the witnesses. The law is set out in the Mishnah as follows:

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY “‘The Blasphemer’ is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself.

Rabbi Joshua B. Karha says: On every day of the trial they examined the witnesses with a substituted name, such as ‘May Jose smite Jose.’ When sentence was to be given they did not declare him guilty of death on the grounds of evidence given with the substituted name, but they (the Judges) sent out” (i .e . out of Court) “all the people and asked the chief among the witnesses and said to him ‘Say expressly what thou heardest: and he says it; and the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments and they may not mend them again. And the second witness says: I also heard the like,’ and the third says ‘I also heard the like’” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 7, 5). The questioning of the witnesses on a trial for blasphemy would take the following form: 1. In what Sabbatic period did you hear the accused use the Name? 2. In what year of the Sabbatic period? 3. In what month? 4. On what date of the month? 5. On what day of the week? 6. At what hour? 7. In what place? This series of questions was known as Hakiroth (Mishnah , p. 388; Sanhedrin 5. 1.).

None of this pedantic Pharisaic procedure was followed by the Sadduceandominated Court at the trial of Jesus. On the contrary, the moment Jesus said “I am,” the High Priest said, “He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.” THE DEFENSE Strictly speaking, Jesus was never formally charged with any offense. He was condemned out of hand for blasphemy the moment He made His claim to be the Messiah and Son of God. His answer and defense to the implied charge of blasphemy was “Truth.” Although it may be that the Gospels do not give us a complete account of all that took place before the Sanhedrin, it seems clear that Jesus did not enter upon a long and reasoned speech in justification of His claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God. The Gospel records suggest He was not given the opportunity. Certainly His claim was not investigated. Jesus apparently realized that nothing He might say would make the slightest difference to their decision. “If I tell you, ye will not believe. nor let me go.” (When He rose from the dead, His Resurrection made not the slightest difference in their attitude to Him.)

Jesus declined to argue with them. He had reasoned with them throughout His public Ministry with but little result. This attitude of refusing to be drawn into an argument with those who argued for argument’s sake and with no desire or intention of learning the truth, was typical of Jesus; but He was always ready and willing to discuss His Mission with earnest seekers after truth. But there was another reason to which without presumption we may, perhaps, attribute the silence of Jesus at His trial. Jesus had made it abundantly plain that He intended to go to the Cross that He might give to the whole world a sign which would be the great proof of His Divine Mission on earth, viz . His resurrection from the dead. His condemnation and death were therefore necessary for the giving of that sign. Moreover, He knew the end from the beginning. On the way up to Jerusalem He forecast to His disciples the course of events: “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed unto the Chief Priests, and unto the Scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles. And they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and the third day He shall rise again.” But although Jesus did not put forward any detailed defense before the Sanhedrin, His Judges were perfectly familiar with His point of view. He had previously told the Jews plainly on what evidence He relied for the proof of His claims. In John 5:1-47 is recorded a discourse by Jesus, in the course of which He mentioned four classes of evidence which should have convinced the Jews. Having recalled the rule of Jewish law that at least two witnesses were required to prove any claim, Jesus proceeded to mention the following evidence: (a) John the Baptist : “Ye sent unto John, and he bear witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved” (John 5:33-35). (b) The Works : “I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me” (John 5:36). (c) The Father : “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you for whom he hath sent him ye believe not” (John 5:37-38). (Jesus was, of course, referring to the fact that when He was baptized of John in Jordan, a voice from heaven said: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”) (d) The Scriptures “Search the scriptures. they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). THE TRAVELERS TO EMMAUS The speech which would have been entirely relevant to the charge of “blasphemy” was the one Jesus made on the day of His resurrection to the two dispirited travelers who journeyed that same day to the village called Emmaus, when “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” ( Luke 24:27), thereby demonstrating that His Mission was not to destroy the law given to Moses by God and handed down from generation to generation, but to fulfill that law in His own person ( Matthew 5:17). As Jesus explained to the travelers (who, in common with all His followers, thought the crucifixion meant the destruction of all their hopes “that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel”) until He had been to the Cross the Scriptures concerning Him would not be fulfilled. “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” This exposition, however, would have been wasted upon the Sanhedrin, for they had obviously made up their minds that in no circumstances whatever would they acknowledge the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah (see pages 89-91). In view of the expression of opinion by the Judges that the Accused was guilty of blasphemy, it became the duty of the High Priest to adjourn the Court for twenty-four hours for the Judges to “pair off” and discuss the case. It was their bounden duty to discuss all possible reasons for an acquittal before discussing reasons for a conviction. The Mishnah lays down the law about consideration of verdict as follows:

CONSIDERATION OF VERDICT “Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or conviction, but capital cases must begin with reasons for acquittal and may not begin with reasons for conviction. “In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict either of acquittal or of conviction by the decision of a majority of one; but in capital cases they may reach a verdict of acquittal by the decision of a majority of one, but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In capital cases they may reverse a verdict from conviction to acquittal but not from acquittal to conviction. “In capital cases all (including the disciples) may argue in favor of acquittal but not in favor of conviction. (Also) in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterwards argue in favor of acquittal, but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterwards change and argue in favor of conviction” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 1). “In capital cases they (the Judges) in declaring their opinion, begin from them that sit at the side” (i .e . the youngest) (Mishnah , Sanhedrin 4. 2). “If their words (i .e . the words of the first and second witnesses) were found to agree together they (the Judges)begin to examine the evidence in favor of acquittal. “If one of the witnesses said: ‘I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal,’ or if one of the disciples said: ‘I have somewhat to argue in favor of his conviction’, they silence him. If one of the disciples said: ‘I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal,’ they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from among them the whole day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, ‘I have somewhat to argue in favor of my acquittal,’ they listen to him, provided that there is anything of substance in his words. “If they found him innocent they set him free; otherwise they leave his sentence over until the morrow. In the meantime they went together in pairs, they ate a little (but they used to drink no wine the whole day) and they discussed the matter all night, and early on the morrow they came to the Court. “He that favored acquittal says, ‘I declared him innocent yesterday and I still declare him innocent’; and he that favored conviction says, ‘I declared him guilty yesterday and I still declare him guilty.’ He that favored conviction may now acquit, but he that favored acquittal may not retract and favor conviction. If they erred in the matter the scribes of the Judges must put them in remembrance. If they all found him innocent they set him free; otherwise they decide to vote. “If twelve favor acquittal, and eleven favor conviction, and one says ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two favor acquittal or favor conviction and one says, ‘I do not know,’ they must add to the number of the Judges. Up to what number may they add them? By two at a time up to one-andseventy.

If, then, thirty-six favor acquittal and thirty-five favor conviction, he is declared innocent; if thirty-six favor conviction and thirty-five favor acquittal, they debate with one another until one of them that favored conviction approves of the words of them that favored acquittal” (Mishnah , Sanhedrin V. 4, 5).

ADVOCATES There was no such person as counsel for the prosecution or counsel for the defense in a Jewish court. The prosecutors were the Witnesses who saw the offense committed. The Judges themselves were required to act as counsel for the defense, and, as we notice in the Mishnah role set out at page 78, any disciple of a Judge present in court had the right to argue in favor of the accused. This latter practice reminds us of the age long tradition of the English Bar by which a Judge of Assize presiding over a criminal trial may call upon any counsel in court to act as counsel for the accused, a request which is treated by the Bar of England with the same respect as a Royal Command. But when the Jews prosecuted one of their countrymen in a Roman court they sometimes engaged the services of an orator for the better presentation of their case. A notable example of this occurred at the trial of the Apostle Paul before Felix (Acts 24:1-27) when the Jews retained an orator, one Tertullus, to conduct the prosecution.

It is sometimes said that the law of England is unduly favorable to the accused; but the safeguards in English law designed to reduce to a minimum the danger of an innocent person being convicted are as nothing compared with the “fences” put around an accused in a Jewish Court. Indeed, with so many “fences” it is a wonder that anybody was convicted. But at the trial of Jesus these safeguards against a miscarriage of justice were thrown to the winds, and, judged by the Mishnah law standards, the proceedings ended in a riot of illegality with the Accused condemned as the Presiding Judge and his colleagues had previously determined should be the case. THE GRAND CONSULTATION “And straightway in the morning the CHIEF PRIESTS held a CONSULTATION with the ELDERS and SCRIBES and the WHOLE COUNCIL. “ ( Mark 15:1); to put him [Jesus] to death” ( Matthew 27:1).

Both Matthew and Mark clearly indicate two meetings of “the whole council,” the name by which the Greater Sanhedrin is commonly regarded as being described in the New Testament: the one meeting being held before and the other after daybreak. They are equally clear that the second meeting was of a much larger body than the first. This is the meeting we refer to earlier in this work.

We are distinctly told by Matthew and Mark that, in addition to “the whole council,” all the “chief priests” and the “elders of the people,” and the “scribes” were present. It is not clear that this was not a session of the Greater Sanhedrin of seventy-one Judges attended by only the usual two, or perhaps three, Scribes? At this meeting the judicial element alone must have run into three figures, for if all three Courts at Jerusalem were in session at one and the same time ninety-seven Judges would be required to provide the necessary quorum—and not every Judge was qualified to adjudicate in a capital case. It seems clear that the Judges of the three Courts must have been drawn from a “pool,” and this pool must have been a large one. Then there were Elders not included in “the whole council.”

Elder Statesmen, perhaps, whose advice would naturally be sought in a national emergency; also the “chief priests,” also not included in the expression “the whole council,” and a not inconsiderable body of Scribes, the specialists in religious law. Altogether these “Rulers of the Jews” must have run into hundreds, and they all had a vital interest in what was going forward. There was no official body superior to the Greater Sanhedrin, and if the Greater Sanhedrin tried Jesus before daybreak, this second assembly would have no power either to review the case or to ratify or quash the finding of that Court. It would seem that this second meeting was for consultative purposes only held for the single purpose of deciding the most expedient way of giving effect to the illegal pre-trial decision of the Sanhedrin to put Jesus to death. One of two courses was open to them: either to defy the Roman edict depriving them of the power to put any man to death, or to decide to bring Jesus before Pilate. Incidentally, they seem to have taken advantage of the holding of the meeting to bring Jesus before it so that the largest possible number of the official classes might hear Jesus repeat His claim to be the Messiah. The Mark record suggests, and the unprecedented nature of the matter under review required, that every member of the official classes then resident in Jerusalem who could be contacted at that early hour was summoned to that vital assembly. It seems to have been a sort of Council of State summoned to be told of the overnight events and to be invited to give the High Priest and the Sanhedrin their moral and formal support for what had been done and the benefit of their opinion as to the best way “to put Jesus to death.” No doubt there was no precedent in Jewish history for such a meeting, but the matter under review was also without precedent. It was precisely the sort of situation in which precedents are made; certainly it was necessary that the High Priest, as Head of the Jewish State, should have the assurance that the whole of official Jewry agreed with what had been done. The need for such a Grand Consultation was obvious. Israel was at the cross-roads. Matters of high policy called urgently for immediate decision.

Much required to be explained and much more required to be arranged. The Accused claimed to be the Messiah. He was, in fact, “mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (Luke 24:19). Many of the Rulers of the Jews believed on Him but secretly. On the Thursday night the restless Festival crowds had retired to rest on the tiptoe of expectancy, the predominant and anxious thought in their minds being the whereabouts of Jesus and whether or not He would give the great Sign at the Feast.

Unknown to them He was, in fact, in their very midst lying under condemnation of death. The High Priest and his colleagues had burnt their boats; there was no going back. The situation called for immediate action.

They had completely and irrevocably reversed their previously fixed and determined policy not to arrest Jesus at the Feast. The Feast was now upon them and Jesus was in their hands. They could not hope to conceal the fact over the nine days of the Feast. The High Priest would have to satisfy the Assembly that he had been justified in going back on the previous decision “not on the feast day,” and he would certainly want their approval of what had been done. It was probably a stormy meeting. Joseph of Arimathea at leash “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them” (Luke 23:51); no doubt he was supported by Nicodemus and others.

Having obtained approval of what had been done, the next question would be, what was to happen now? What was the best way to carry out their decision to put Jesus to death? Should they themselves kill Jesus, thus defying the Roman edict, or should they bring Jesus before Pilate in the hope that he would condemn Him?

Several High Priests, including Annas, had already been deposed from office by the Procurators before the arrival of Pilate. If Caiaphas exceeded his powers, he could be sure that a like fate would overtake him. But that was not a matter of supreme importance, because Annas had a large family and could easily put forward a successor. (In fact, when Caiaphas was eventually deposed after the recall of Pilate to Rome, he was succeeded by his brother-in-law, Artanus.) But there was a more important question to be decided than the probable fate of the High Priest. How would public opinion react to the news that the Sanhedrin had not only condemned but executed the Great Prophet who “went about doing good” and “healing ·. all manner of disease”? and that just at the time when they confidently expected some great sign from Him to prove His claim to the Messiahship? Would it not be better to put the onus and responsibility for the death of Jesus upon the Romans?

Whatever the reason, or reasons, for their decision, it was, in fact, decided to bring Jesus before the Judgment Seat of Pilate.

Having made that decision, they had another vital question to settle. Should they inform Pilate of all that had taken place during the night after the arrest, or should the proceedings remain secret? If they disclosed the proceedings before their own Court, the illegality thereof would be manifest to Pilate, for he would know that according to the Pharisaic law the trial could not lawfully take place by night. Pilate would want to know of what offense Jesus was convicted. He would not be interested in a conviction for blasphemy. Awkward questions would be asked and there would be no answer to them. Complications would arise. Pilate might immediately quash the conviction and release Jesus and let him go. Would it not be better to say nothing about their own proceedings and merely mention that Jesus had been arrested overnight and was now, early the next morning, being brought before Pilate for trial?

There was no difficulty in practice for the Jewish authorities to bring a Jew before the Procurator for trial without any previous Jewish trial. It was often done in New Testament days. Thus we read in Acts 18:12-16, that when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews brought Paul before the Roman judgment seat, saying: “This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you; But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters. And he drove them from the judgment seat.” These sentiments were largely held by the procurators as a class, and would appear to have been those of Pilate also; for when Jesus eventually appeared before him, his first reaction was to say to the Jews, “take ye him, and judge him according to your law” ( John 18:31).

Caiaphas, who was a friend of Pilate, would undoubtedly be aware of Pilate’s probable reaction, and that would be an important fact to bear in mind in deciding whether or not to disclose the midnight trial to Pilate and, in any event, how to present the case against Jesus.

It would be obvious to the High Priest and the Council that it would be useless to expect Pilate to be interested in a charge of “blasphemy,” for that would be “a question of their law”; “blasphemy” was an offense unknown to Roman law; the Romans were pagans. Therefore the Jews would have to prefer a charge which would interest Pilate, and be one with which he would be bound to deal. And, in addition to alleging an offense against Roman law, it had to be one which carried the death penalty.

Subsequent events reveal fairly clearly the lines of their plan of action.

They would accuse Jesus of high treason — treason against the Emperor.

Pilate would be obliged to take cognizance of such a charge and be unable to refer it to the Sanhedrin. Pilate would not be told of the trial by the Sanhedrin and no question of quashing their conviction for illegality or other reasons would arise. Pilate would suppose that he was trying a case which had not been previously investigated. If Pilate showed signs of wanting to release Jesus they held a trump card. They would stir up the people to point out that if he let Jesus go he was not Caesar’s friend and would render himself liable to recall to Rome for suffering a rival to Caesar in Judea. Yes, the plan was fool-proof. They would lose no time in informing Pilate that they desired to bring an important prisoner before him; that the interests of State would brook of no delay, and further and better particulars of the urgency of the matter would be supplied by the High Priest in personal audience.

Much speculation has been indulged in on the question why Pilate was so readily available, and at such an early hour, and who persuaded him that great haste was called for. Comment has also been made on the fact that no mention is made in the Gospels about Caiaphas appearing personally at the trial before Pilate.

Now although the high priest did not appear personally at the trials and in the nature of things it would not be reasonable or probable that he should do so — there seems to be no doubt that it was the practice in some cases for the High Priest to communicate personally with the Procurator and make representations about an impending trial. Thus in Acts 25:1-27 we read that while Paul was in the custody of the Romans in Caesarea, the High Priest made representations to Felix asking that Paul should be removed to Jerusalem for trial. It would therefore seem reasonable to suppose that Caiaphas, as High Priest, and the liaison officer between official Jewry and the Procurator, would immediately after the Grand Consultation make haste to visit Pilate and urge upon him the necessity for immediate trial, notwithstanding the proximity of the Feasts rather, indeed, because of that proximity. It may be that Caiaphas took the opportunity of urging upon Pilate that it would be in the Roman as well as in the Jewish interest that Jesus should be condemned and executed out of hand before the general populace became aware of His attest, and His devoted followers from Galilee, who had hailed Him so joyfully on the previous Sunday on His way to Jerusalem, knew that His life was in peril. Why not present His followers with a fait accompli and end with one stroke all danger of an insurrection?

Whatever the true reasons, the fateful decision was in fact made to bring Jesus before Pilate.

SUMMING UP To try to form an opinion as to the legality or otherwise of the Jewish “proceedings” (apart altogether from the fact that the Sanhedrin had predetermined the issue) it is necessary to know the answer to the vital question, what was the law by which Israel as a nation was governed? The answer would seem to be that inasmuch as the Jewish State was a theocracy, the national law was the Law of God. The difficulty which confronts us is that the Sanhedrin of Judges could not agree as to what was the Law of God. Both the Pharisaic and the Sadducean Judges were agreed that the Written Law was of divine origin; the Pharisees contended that the Oral Law also was divine; not so the Sadducees. Who is to decide between the two contending sects? Perhaps the most authoritative pronouncement on this matter is to be found in the words of Jesus to the Pharisees when He said “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Yet the teaching of Jesus was more in consonance with the doctrines of the Pharisees than with those of the Sadducees; and Jesus may not have intended to condemn all the traditions contained in the Oral law. In any case, the Judges not being agreed as to what constituted the national law, it does not seem possible to dogmatize about the legality or otherwise of some of the incidents in the proceedings. It cannot be held that a particular act or omission during the proceedings was illegal, unless it can be shown that it was done or omitted contrary to the agreed law.

Presumably there was general agreement about rules of procedure for the efficient day-to-day working of the Courts, but even this matter is not beyond doubt.

We do know from Josephus, however, that “they” (the Sadducees), “are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, unwillingly and by force sometimes they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.” (Ant. 18. 4. 1.) Bearing these observations of Josephus in mind, we offer the following comments upon the “proceedings.” As to the much debated question of the legality of holding the proceedings by night, since we do not know if the Sadducees accepted the Mishnah ruling about trial of capital cases being held only in the day time, we cannot be sure that the proceedings were illegal because held wholly or in part by night. As to the trial being illegally held because the Festival of the Passover had commenced, there seems to be no doubt that the Court was illegally in session, because the holding of it at such a time was a breach of the agreed law. As to the “conviction” being without admissible evidence to support it, the conviction was based on a “confession” made by the Accused in Court and procured by illegal questioning by the presiding Judge. This was a breach of the agreed law which required the offense to be proved by at least two witnesses; no witnesses gave evidence that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah or Son of God. As to the non-observance of the Mishnah rules concerning the trial of charges of blasphemy, we have no evidence that the Sadducees ever agreed to these rules and in view of their pedantic Pharisaic character it is improbable that the Sadducees would agree. As to the non-observance of the Mishnah rules about consideration of verdict, here again we do not know if these rules were ever agreed to by the Sadducees. As to Jesus being condemned without being afforded an opportunity to be heard in His own defense, this was a fundamental illegality going to the very root of the “trial.”

Finally, there is the predominating fact compared with which all other irregularities pale into insignificance, that the result of the “trial” was formally pre-determined by the Judges, without distinction of sect. Such conduct under any system of jurisprudence would be fatal to the validity of a conviction. To these views the Sanhedrin of Judges might reply, if they could: “We knew from the outset of the Proceedings that the real main and substantial question before us was whether or not Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God. It was common knowledge that He made that claim. We knew that if He were asked the question He would affirm that claim. The proceedings were conducted in great haste. If we had had more time to call witnesses, evidence would have been given by those who heard Him make the claim and He would not have disputed their evidence. Haste was indicated because if there had been a remand, a riot, which might have developed into an insurrection, would probably have broken out, with the inevitable result that the Jewish State would have been destroyed. It was expedient that one man should die in preference to the nation being destroyed. We did not believe His claim to be the Messiah. He was not the ‘type’ to lead the Jews in a successful revolt against Rome. We were aware of the fact that He had performed miracles but we attributed His power to do so to Satanic agencies. We admit we may not have administered the law with complete strictness and may have ignored some of the rules of evidence and procedure. Most of us denied the binding authority of the Oral Law. But there was no miscarriage of justice because Jesus admitted that He claimed to be the Christ. Therefore, on His own admission, He was guilty of blasphemy.” To such a reply, it may be rejoined: “The issue was not only whether Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but whether or not His claim was true.

Justice cannot possibly be regarded as having been done, when the Judges concerned met before the trial and determined on the death of the Accused; thereby deciding to disregard anything the Accused might say in His defense, and in support of His claim, or might prove by the testimony of His witnesses. With regard to the argument of ‘expediency’; Jewish law never justified the killing of a man on such grounds. The killing of a man in such circumstances would amount to judicial murder.”

One highly important fact emerges from a consideration of the “trial,” namely, The claim of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah was NOT INVESTIGATED. The behavior of the Judges when they received the news of the resurrection of Jesus, apart from their conduct before and at the Trial, justifies the belief that in no circumstances whatever would they be prepared to admit the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel. When the news of the resurrection reached them, instead of trying to make contact with Jesus to confirm the fact, or holding a full inquiry to ascertain the facts — possibly with a view to holding a new trials they gave large money to the soldiers who supplied the evidence, as a bribe to induce them to start the false story that while they slept the disciples stole the body of Jesus: “Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day” (Matthew 28:13-15).

Why was it that the Rulers of the Jews would not admit the Messiahship of Jesus in any circumstances whatever? Put in a sentence the answer would seem to be that the Sadducees preferred that there should be no Messiah, while so far as the Pharisees were concerned, Jesus was not the “type” envisaged by them as the true Messiah of Israel. They were looking for a Messiah who would be “like unto Moses,” or who, like the great national hero and idol Judas Maccabeus (B.C. 167-161), with a strong and mighty arm would deliver them from their oppressors; one who would effect the supreme deliverance so that the Promised Land would pass into their undisputed possession for ever; one who would be attended by every circumstance of power and glory as foretold by the prophets. None other would satisfy them. Jesus fulfilled none of these prophecies. Jesus was not a warrior and, in any case, gave no sign of being willing to lead a revolt against Rome. On the contrary, He was a man of peace. His kingdom was “not of this world.” He had not denounced the Romans; but He had certainly denounced them — the Rulers of the Jews. They were looking for a Messiah of the type indicated by the prophet Daniel, amongst many others: “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” ( Daniel 7:13-14).

Jesus never claimed to have fulfilled such prophecies. He made it plain that that event was yet in the future. He described that “second” advent in phraseology not unlike that employed by Daniel, when He said: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats” ( Matthew 25:31-32).

Israel understood nothing about two advents and erroneously attributed all the prophecies about the Messiah to a single advent. Further, they ignored all the prophecies about a” suffering” Messiah.

Moreover, Jesus taught that He had a mission to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. In the estimation of the Jewish Rulers such a person could not possibly be a” true” Jew or their Messiah. In their conception of things Jehovah was not concerned with the Gentiles. They were deeply conscious of the age-long promise of Jehovah to their father Abraham; “Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,” but were quite unconscious of the meaning of the rest of the promise “and all nations of the earth shall be blessed in him” ( Genesis 18:17-18). They knew that these promises had been re-affirmed to Isaac,” I will perform the oath which I swear unto Abraham thy father”; but, again, the rest of the reaffirmation, “and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed,” was not comprehended ( Genesis 26:3-4). They knew that the promise and reaffirmation had been repeated to Jacob, “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed,” but the rest of the promise, “and in thee and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed” ( Genesis 28:13-14) was lost upon them. And so, failing to understand that the teaching of Scripture was that the Messiah of the Jews was also the Savior of the World, and that there were to be two advents of the Messiah; and erroneously expecting all the glories of the second advent to be fulfilled at the first and, because Jesus did not fulfill (as indeed He did not claim to fulfill) the glories of the second advent, they treated Him as an impostor and His claim to be the Son of God as blasphemy.

Therefore, “they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, have fulfilled them in condemning him” ( Acts 13:27). “And The Whole Multitude Of Them Arose, And Led Him Unto Pilate” ( Luke 23:1).