The (Mis-)Trial of Jesus
Written by:
Dr. Harold Sawyer)
The following references serve as a background study for His Trial: Matthew 26:57-58; 27:1,2,11,26: Mark 14:53-65; 15:1-15; Luke 22:66—23:25; John 18:12-14,19-24,28—19-24,28—19:16.
Considerable controversy concerning the propriety of the trial of Jesus has existed ever since His crucifixion. Volumes have been searched in an effort to find some legal justification for the verdict rendered, but nowhere is there to be found any logical or legal excuse for the absolute disregard of the then existing Hebrew code, nor the customs usually followed in criminal proceedings before Jewish courts.
Jesus had to undergo two trials: one ecclesiastical and the other civil; the first before Caiaphas and the second before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. This was necessary at that time because Judaea was under the jurisdiction of Rome and under the administration of a Roman ruler. In matters of religion Rome permitted the Jews to continue their ecclesiastical courts (the Sanhedrin), before which body all religious offenders were prosecuted and by which all punishment was meted out. In the case of Jesus’ trial, however, where the only punishment which would satisfy His accusers was death, the ecclesiastical court did not have the power to inflict the desired penalty, thus making it necessary to resort to the civil tribune to procure their object. Knowing full well that Jesus had many followers, the entire plan to capture, try, and convict Him was carefully laid, so that all would be fully completed after sunset and before daybreak. Then only a few persons beside the horde which made up the army of conspirators would know what was taking place and only the actual execution would be left to be done after sunrise.
There were a number of steps which had to be followed in a Hebrew trial, especially if the accused was guilty of a crime worthy of death.
1. A court could not meet for capital punishment during Feast Days (Mattew 26:4,5)
2. When a trial was in order, before anything was done, the morning sacrifice had to be offered first.
3. There had to be the assemblying of all the Sanhedrin (Judges)—in their appointed place (the Temple in this case). The Sanhedrin was comprised of seventy men—the highest tribunal of the Jews. There were 23 priests, 23 scribes, 23 elders, and the presiding officer; namely, the High Priest (Numbers 11:16, 17).
4. When convened, there was an examination of all witnesses, both in private and in the presence of the accused. No one could speak against the accused until someone spoke in his favor. Testimony was never admitted from women, minors, idiots, slaves, blind men, gamblers, relatives, or Gentiles. All evidence had to be heard. The witnesses had to agree on essential details. All evidence had to be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). If not, the testimony was rejected. Each witness was required to give evidence separately and in the presence of the accused and corroborated both times. The accused could testify on his behalf but was not compelled to do so . He could not be compelled to testify against himself, and a confession alone was not acceptable as a basis of conviction.
5. Afterward, there was a debate and balloting on the innocence or guilt of the accused. If any member of the Sanhedrin had a preconceived idea about the guilt or innocence of the accused, the case was thrown out of court. The youngest voted first, then the next youngest, next junior jurors, and last the seniors. This was done so the youngest would not be influenced by the elders. If the defendant was acquitted, he was freed immediately. If convicted, the court met again the next day, re-discussed all the evidence, and took another vote (the second trial was like an appeal). If a judge voted “not guilty” in the first trial, he could not change to “guilty” in the second trial. But if he had voted “guilty” the first time, he could change to “not guilty” after due consideration of all the evidence. The verdict of the court could not be unanimous. “A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt on the day of this trial had the effect of an acquittal.” If found guilty both days, there was no delay in the execution of the person (that is, if the sentence was death). The execution was at sundown, and the guilty was stoned to death (the Jewish method of capital punishment).
(To be continued) May the Lord Jesus Christ bless, touch, strengthen, and heal you in Jesus Name, Amen.
| 3.5 |
Tags: Jesus, Not guilty, Trial
