21. The Trial of Christ
“A Place Called Gabbatha”
The Trial of Christ
“THAT ENTIRE DRAMA of tragedy,” writes E. W. Westhafer, “from the arrest in the garden of Gethsemane to the last spear-thrust in His side on Golgotha, was so utterly illegal that had He but spoken one sentence of assertion of His rights, under either Jewish or Roman law, the crucifixion would never have occurred. But He did not speak, He chose His suffering.”
Never were legal proceedings more irregular or verdict more unjust than in the trial of Jesus. From arrest to crucifixion every principle of justice was violated, and provisions of both criminal and ecclesiastical law flouted. We shall consider some of the irregularities.
The Arrest
According to the laws of the Sanhedrin, the taking of any steps in criminal proceedings after sunset was expressly prohibited. The arrest that was instigated by the ecclesiastical authorities was effected through a bribed traitor, contrary to the Mosaic law, which prohibited the taking of a gift (Exodus 23:8). Then again the judges themselves participated in the arrest, for some members of the Sanhedrin, in their anxiety to see that their schemes did not miscarry, had joined in the crowd that intruded on the Savior’s agony in the garden.
The Ecclesiastical Trials
Between the arrest and the death of our Lord were only eighteen hours, and yet how much indignity and injustice was crowded into them. Three trials before the religious authorities—Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin; and three trials before Pilate and Herod. Each ecclesiastical trial was illegal because it was conducted before the morning sacrifice. The trials before Annas and Caiaphas, when they sat alone, violated the legal provisions (Deuteronomy 19:16–18). The requirement of two or three witnesses was conveniently ignored (Deuteronomy 17:6). Caiaphas contravened the provisions of the Mishna by seeking to get Christ to incriminate himself (Matthew 26:63). The Mishna wisely provided that in a case involving capital punishment, the verdict could not be given on the same day. At least twenty-four hours must elapse between trial and verdict, thus guarding against arriving at a hasty decision.
Then, as today, secret trials were illegal. All criminal cases had to be heard in public. In this case the Sanhedrin conducted a secret trial in a private place. Jews could not hold court on a feast day any more than our courts sit on Sunday.
The charge of blasphemy against Jesus actually originated with His judges! But Dr. Edersheim points out that “the Sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges, it only investigated those that were brought before it.” The witnesses against Him were known perjurers (Matthew 26:59–60), were not sworn, and their evidence was not consistent (see Deuteronomy 19:16–21).
The judges were to be humane and kind, but Caiaphas was abusive and Jesus was struck over the mouth before any charge against Him was proved.
The Verdict
The function of the Jewish judge was not merely to try the case, but to defend the prisoner who was presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. Thus every accused person should be given every opportunity of establishing his innocence. Between Jewish and Western jurisprudence there are many differences, and one of those is that if the vote of condemnation of the judges was unanimous, it was considered that the judges had failed in their duty of defending the accused, who would be released.
Instead of releasing Jesus, however, they unanimously condemned Him on His own unsupported testimony (Deuteronomy 19:15). The high priest defied the Levitical code by rending his garments (Leviticus 21:10). The voting in a capital case was to be individual, beginning with the younger men, lest they be influenced by the voting of their elders. In our Lord’s trial, not only were His words distorted (John 2:19–21; cf. Matthew 26:60–61)and His defense not heard, but they voted simultaneously in contravention of their own law (Matthew 26:66). Thus the ecclesiastical trials were shot through with prejudice, fraud, and illegality. The religious leaders were determined to secure a conviction at all costs, whether the evidence justified it or not.
The Roman Trials
Fearing that Jesus might appeal to Pilate, the Jews sought to forestall Him by changing their charge from blasphemy—the issue in the ecclesiastical trials, which they knew would be rejected by Pilate—to that of sedition (Luke 23:2). Jesus, they alleged, was establishing a rival empire, a charge any Roman governor must seriously examine.
The devout and punctilious Jews were too pious to enter a Gentile dwelling on a feast day! This is “the culminating instance of religious scrupulosity going hand in hand with cruel and bloodthirsty criminality.” Respecting their scruples, Pilate came out and asked, “What accusation bring ye against this man?” Their answer made it clear to Pilate that they desired him not so much to dispense justice to the accused, as to confirm their own condemnation of Him. In jest Pilate said, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.” But this was not to their liking, for they had no power of capital punishment (John 18:31). Finally Pilate demanded a formal accusation, which they brought under three counts:
The first two unsubstantiated counts were dismissed by Pilate, but the third was so serious that he could not ignore it, since it was treason against Rome.
Contrary to Roman law, however, Pilate endeavored to make the prisoner incriminate Himself. Having heard Jesus (John 18:34–37), Pilate brought the trial to an end by the pronouncement, “I find in Him no fault” (John 18:38).
That acquittal should have been followed by the immediate release of Jesus, but no! Instead, it brought a fresh torrent of accusations that caused the weak Pilate to vacillate. A chance mention of Galilee afforded the welcome opportunity of passing on his problem to Herod, who had jurisdiction over that district and who by a happy chance was in Jerusalem at the moment (Luke 23:7).
Herod had long wished to see this miracle-worker, but Jesus’ refusal to perform to his order hurt his royal pride. Since no evidence was adduced that would warrant a conviction, he contented himself with mocking Him, and sent Him back to Pilate.
Pilate and Herod
A significant sentence occurs in Luke’s record of that momentous day. “And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together” (Luke 23:12). Why? Secular history supplies the answer. Pilate and Herod, it appears, were fellow-conspirators against Caesar, hence Pilate’s concern when the Jews said, “If thou let this man go, thou are not Caesar’s friend.” Had news of his participation in the conspiracy leaked out? He must not do anything that would seem in any way disloyal to Caesar. The prisoner (whether innocent or guilty matters not) must be sacrificed to save his own skin.
Then followed a travesty upon law as well as upon justice. Pilate resorted to every stratagem to secure the release of Jesus and yet not imperil his own position at Rome. He endeavored to get the Jews to consent to His release, since none of the charges against Him had been substantiated, but all to no avail. They would be appeased by nothing less than blood. Barabbas the murderer was much to be preferred to Jesus, the sinless Son of God. Though declared innocent, He was scourged, clothed in purple, crowned with thorns. Only at the last did the true charge come to the surface. “By our law he ought to die,” cried the Jews, “because he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7, italics added).
At last the craven Pilate succumbed to their threats and delivered Him up to be crucified. But as Maclaren points out, he took his revenge by placing upon the cross the superscription that was so galling to them, “The king of the Jews.” Then he washed his hands, according to the Jewish custom, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man. See ye to it.” “His blood be on us and on our children” was their fateful response.
On what legal grounds was Jesus condemned? None! He was four times tried and three times acquitted, and yet was condemned to die. The Light of the world had shone with such a searching beam that a guilty world must extinguish it.
The Importance of the Trial
Wherein does its importance consist? “It lies in the fact,” says W. Robertson Nicoll, “that the issue raised was Christ’s claim to be the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, and a King. He was tried unfairly and judged unjustly, but the true issue was raised. He died, then, because before the Jews He claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah, and before Pilate to be Christ and King.
“All generations since have felt that the judged was the Judge. The men were really standing before the bar of Christ, and all appear in a terrible distinctness revealed by the Light of the world.”
By Thy sweat bloody and clotted! Thy soul in agony,
Thy head crowned with thorns, bruised with staves,
Thine eyes a fountain of tears,
Thine ears full of insults,
Thy mouth moistened with vinegar and gall,
Thy face stained with spitting,
Thy neck bowed down with the burden of the cross,
Thy back ploughed with wheals and wounds of the scourge,
Thy pierced hands and feet,
Thy strong cry, Eli, Eli,
Thy heart pierced with the spear,
Thy water and blood thence flowing,
Thy body broken, Thy blood poured out—
Lord forgive the iniquity of Thy servant
And cover all his sin.LANCELOT ANDREWS