Chapter Third
Details Of The Trial (Night Session)
Two
distinct sessions were occupied in the trial.
The first was held on the night of the fourteenth of Nisan (March). Accounts of it are given by John,
Matthew, and Mark. The second took
place on the morning of the same day.
The latter session is mentioned by both Matthew and Mark, and its
proceedings are related in detail by Luke.
The
Sanhedrim is once more assembled, but this time it lays aside the mask of
secrecy; for Jesus is to be judged publicly.
We emphasize the word, “Sanhedrim,” for it is the veritable body that
was composed of the three principal orders of the Hebrew people — the priests,
the scribes, and the elders. “And they
that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest . . . and
with Him WERE ASSEMBLED ALL THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE ELDERS AND THE SCRIBES,”
(Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:53).
“It was
night,” says John, “Judas having received a band of men and of officers from
the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and
weapons. . . . Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took
Jesus, and bound Him, and led Him away,” John 13:30, 18:3, 12, 13.
The FIRST
IRREGULARITY that we shall notice in the proceedings of the trial is the violation
of the Jewish law that prohibited the transaction of legal business at night: “Let
a capital offense be tried during the day, but suspend it at night,”
(Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chap. 4. 1).
Its being
held before the evening sacrifice is the SECOND IRREGULARITY. “The Sanhedrim sat from the close of the
morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice,” (Talmud, Jerus, Sanhedrim, Chap. 1,
fol. 19).
The THIRD
IRREGULARITY is to be found in the fact of its being the first day of the feast
of unleavened bread and the eve of the Passover. “They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath-day nor on
that of any festival,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim, C. 4.1).
“The high
priest then asked Jesus . . .” John 18:19. It is Caiaphas, be it remembered, who interrogates — the same man
who, a short time before, in a general assembly of the Sanhedrim held in his
own palace on the occasion of the resurrection of Lazarus, had declared that
the public welfare imperatively demanded that Jesus of Nazareth be put to
death. What! An accuser act as judge? In this case he is even more than a judge,
for he is president of an assembly of judges. Here we have a FOURTH IRREGULARITY — an irregularity too glaring
to escape the notice of even a casual observer — for it is a well-known fact
that no legislative body ever allowed an accuser to act as judge. “If a . . . witness rise up against any man
. . . then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before
the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days,” Deuteronomy
19:16, 17. From this passage we see
that the accuser and the judge were to be two distinct persons; but here
Caiaphas, who was accuser yesterday, is judge today! This unprecedented monstrosity is especially pointed out by
John. He says: “Caiaphas was he, which
gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the
people,” John 18:14.
“The high
priest then asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine,” John 18:19. Caiaphas, the judge and accuser, instead of
opening the proceedings by reading the indictments and producing the witnesses,
in accordance with the requirements of the Jewish law, proceeds as prosecuting
attorney. “If there be found among you
. . . a man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy
God . . . and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it
be true . . . at the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses . . .” Deuteronomy
17:2-6. Caiaphas, as we have said,
begins with a captious question, in order to criminate Jesus on His own
confession. This mode of procedure
constitutes a FIFTH IRREGULARITY; for what could be more inconsistent than to
arraign a man against whom no formal accusation had been presented, or to
interrogate him regarding his own affairs without confronting him with his
legally constituted accusers?
“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,”
John 18:20, 21. This
answer of Jesus brings out clearly the illegality committed by Caiaphas in
opening the trial without previously preparing a bill of indictment and
specifications against the accused — a preliminary necessary to legalize the
decisions of every court of justice.
Why do you
ask Me? That is to say, do you wish Me
to become My own accuser? Have you any
specific charge to bring against Me? If
so, it is your duty formally to state it, that I may assert My innocence or
plead My guilt; but if you know nothing against Me, and there are no witnesses
to testify against Me or My doctrines, how can you expect Me to become My own
accuser? Do you not see that by your
endeavors to extort from Me a confession of guilt you legally declare My
innocence? “We have it as a
fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation
against himself,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chap. 4.2).
“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?” John 18:22.
In this
unprecedented act of brutality we find a SIXTH IRREGULARITY, reflecting as it
does upon the humanity and sense of justice of the judges in permitting a deed
so shameful in their presence. Every
prisoner is entitled to the fullest protection of the law, and is to be
considered innocent until his guilt be proved; but here the silence observed by
the judges in allowing the dastardly act to go unpunished and unreproved shows
clearly that the insult was sanctioned by the entire body. The chief blame, of course, rested upon the
judges, especially upon him who presided over the assembly. For if both the Bible and the Mishnah enjoin
upon the judges the use of terms expressive of humanity and kindness in
addressing a prisoner — as, “My son, confess your sin” . . . “My very dear
daughter, what is the cause of your sin?”
(Joshua 7:19; Mishnah, Sota, Chap. 1.4) — much more do
they prohibit the tolerance on the part of the judges of any act of violence or
brutality perpetrated against the prisoner.
“Jesus
answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why
smitest thou Me?” John 18:23.
This
answer might be paraphrased thus: “If I have spoken evil against the truth or
against the high priest, testify to My guilt, or show wherein I have erred; but
if you cannot prove that I have said anything against either, why do you insult
Me thus? I only claim the right to
which, as a prisoner, the law entitles Me.”
The truth is, Jesus would have been justified in using even stronger
language, not only to the insolent servant, but even to the high priest who
tacitly authorized so manifest a violation of the law. “If He did it not, it was because He was
unwilling to dishonor the high priesthood in the person holding that sacred
office. His defense, however, was none
the less forcible, nor His protestations of innocence less dignified on account
of the mildness of His language,” (St. Cyprien, Epist., 4. Ad Corn.,
p. 114).
Deposition of the Witnesses
“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,” Matthew 26:59, 60; Mark 14:55.
Jesus
having demanded that the charges alleged against Him be adduced and supported
by the testimony of witnesses, it was found impossible to effect His
condemnation without producing some witnesses against Him. Now see the next step taken by the
Sanhedrim. Messengers are actually sent out promiscuously among the crowd to
summon men as witnesses, with orders to offer them bribes for bearing testimony
against the accused. In this iniquitous
proceeding, together with the miserable pretense of an examination given by the
judges to the naturally conflicting reports of the fraudulent witnesses, we
find the SEVENTH IRREGULARITY. “And the
judges shall make diligent inquisition, and, behold, if the witness…” Deuteronomy
19:18. But this is not all. They commit an EIGHTH IRREGULARITY in
violating the fundamental law enjoining the judge, before hearing the testimony
of a witness, to administer to him an oath binding him to absolute truthfulness
in all his statements. “Remember that a
heavy responsibility rests on you . . .” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chap.
4.5). It is but natural that these
humane and righteous judges, having themselves assented to the suborning of the
witnesses, should have shrunk from the inconsistency of holding them
responsible for their perjury, thus involving themselves in a new difficulty,
which is nothing less than a breach of the law demanding the prompt punishment
of false witnesses. “Behold, if the
witness be a false witness . . . then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to
do unto his brother . . . life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot,” Deuteronomy 19:18-21.
This
constitutes the NINTH IRREGULARITY. In
truth, these men are no longer judges, but a band of murderers clamoring for
the blood of a guiltless man. To the
strange scenes enacted in the Sanhedrim hall on this memorable occasion history
furnishes no parallel, except one be found in that mockery of a trial which, by
order of the wicked Jezebel, was to result in the condemnation of the innocent
Naboth. “She wrote letters in Ahab’s name,
and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the
nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters, saying, proclaim a fast, and set
Naboth on high among the people: and set two men, sons of Belial, before him,
to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the
king. And then carry him out and stone
him, that he may die. And the men of
his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city,
did as Jezebel had sent unto them . . . and the men of Belial witnessed against
. . . Naboth in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God
and the king. Then they carried him
forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died,” I Kings
21:8-14.
But let us
continue with the deposition of the witnesses.
“For many
bare false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together. At the last came two false witnesses, and
said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it
in three days.”
“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 14:56-59; Matthew 26:60.
Before
noticing the discrepancies in the testimony of these two witnesses, we observe
a TENTH IRREGULARITY, consisting in the fact of their being examined
simultaneously and in the presence of each other, when the law required that
only one witness should be admitted for examination at a time. “Separate them, and I will examine them,”
Apocrypha.
In the
testimony quoted above, the enormity of the charges is obvious. For it is a well-known fact that the Jews
were always very jealous of the glory of their Temple; so much so that Jeremiah
narrowly escaped stoning by the priests and the people for having dared to
prophesy that God would one day reduce the Temple to the condition of Shiloh,
and convert it into a desert, Jeremiah 26:6. It was only through the intervention of the lords at court that
his life was spared. We can understand,
therefore, that the charges brought against Jesus by the two witnesses were of
the gravest importance, and must have produced a profound impression upon the entire
assembly, inspiring them with the hope of at last finding a legal pretext for
the conviction and condemnation of their defenseless victim; and so it might
have been but for the falseness and incongruity apparent in the testimony. But
what about the law that so rigorously demanded an absolute agreement in the
statements of witnesses, not only as regarded facts and events but even their
minutest details?
We shall
now proceed to show that the testimony was false.
1. The language imputed to Jesus was not the
same that He actually used. He did not
say, “I can destroy,” or “I will destroy,” but DESTROY! “Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up,” John 2:19.
This speech being merely hypothetical, since it signified supposing
you destroy this temple . . . was not sufficient to constitute a serious
charge; but the witnesses, well remunerated for their services, observing in
the judges signs of increasing impatience and determination, were by no means
loath to bring the business to a close by distorting the words of Jesus into a treasonable
threat that would inevitably insure His condemnation.
2. The testimony given by these two witnesses
was clearly a misinterpretation of the words of Jesus, who, in uttering them,
had made no allusion to the material Temple at Jerusalem, but referred to the
living temple of His body. This is
affirmed by the apostle John, in whose presence the words had been spoken: “He spake of the temple of His body,” John
2:21. For further corroboration of
our assertion, let us notice the terms actually used by Jesus. To make it obvious to His hearers that He
intended to speak of His own body, He made use of an expression corresponding
to the Latin word “solvite,” which instead of “destroy” really signifies
“break, or dissolve” — an expression very appropriate as applied to an animated
body, a living temple, the members of which can be broken or dissolved by
death; but not so in connection with a material edifice, an inanimate
temple. But a final proof that such was
the sense in which these remarkable words were uttered, we find in the latter
clause of the sentence, “And in three days I will RAISE IT UP” — i.e., revive
it — not “I will rebuild it.” If
Jesus had referred to the Temple at Jerusalem, he would have used the words destroy
and rebuild; but since He had in view none other than a mystical temple
— His own body — He employed the terms break or dissolve the members,
and revive or resuscitate.
With regard, then, to the two witnesses who had so grossly perverted the
words of Christ, we must conclude one of these two things:
Either
they failed to understand the words, as did those other Jews who, present on
the same occasion, exclaimed on hearing them, “Forty and six years was this
Temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?” or, while perfectly
apprehending the idea thus figuratively expressed, they designedly and
maliciously put upon the language a false construction. In the latter case they were false witnesses
in a twofold degree: not only imputing to Christ words that He had not used — i.e.,
I can destroy, I will destroy — but applying those words to the Temple at
Jerusalem when they bore to it no reference whatever. Thus they falsified both the letter and the spirit of these
utterances of Christ.
Be it
further noticed, that if the witnesses had spoken the truth, and if Christ had
really spoken the words which they imputed to Him, their evidence could not
have been legally accepted for the following reason: According to the Hebraic
law, it was necessary to the validity of the testimony that all the
witnesses should agree upon the same fact in all its parts, (Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chap. 5.2). “For instance, if one witness were to
testify to having seen an Israelite in the act of worshiping the sun, and
another to have seen the same man worship the moon, yet, although each of the
two facts proves clearly that the man had been guilty of the horrible crime of
idolatry, the discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses invalidates their
testimony, and the accused is free,” (Maimonides, Sanhedrim, Chap.
20).
The first
witness, in testifying that Jesus had said, I will destroy this temple that
is made with hands, charged Him with the serious crime of uttering threats
against a religious and national institution; while the second, in imputing to
Him the words, I am able to destroy the Temple of God, only makes Him
out a swaggerer and a braggart. Now,
the acceptance by the council of these incongruous (Mark 14:59)
statements constitutes the ELEVENTH IRREGULARITY; for by the law above quoted
the testimony should have been declared null, and the prisoner released.
Caiaphas,
instead of refusing to receive the testimony of the false witnesses, as he was
duty bound to do, made it the basis of a second interrogatory. “And the high priest stood up in the midst,
and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness
against thee?” Mark 14:60. That
is to say, Do you not hear the overwhelming charges which these witnesses bring
against You? Why are You silent? Speak! Caiaphas, by drawing the attention of
Jesus to the danger of His position, hoped to evoke from Him such replies in
explanation of the statements imputed to Him as would implicate Him, and make
Him appear guilty in the eyes of the people.
“But He
held His speach, and answered nothing,” Mark 14:61.
The cause
of Christ needed no defense nor palliation, nor did the statement constituting
the principal charge against Him require any explication beyond a faithful
rendering by the witnesses. Besides,
His refusal to answer the questions put to Him by the crafty Caiaphas was
doubtless meant to show not only His interrogator, but the whole assembly, that
He perfectly understood the motives that had prompted them. His silence was indeed an eloquent rebuke,
and at this period of the trial was fulfilled the prophecy of David: “They also
that seek after My life lay snares for Me; and they that seek My hurt speak
mischievous things, and imagine deceits all the day long. But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was
as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth,” Psalm 38:12, 13.
It is
indeed astonishing that this calm and majestic silence, so unnatural to men
under impending death, should not have opened the eyes of His judges. True, a few hours later, Pilate, pagan as he
was, was so impressed by the grand solemnity of the silent figure before him
that, under the uneasiness of mind awakened by the sight, he would have
released the defenseless victim. But Caiaphas
and the Sanhedrim, far from recognizing in the silent attitude of Jesus the
fulfillment of the prophecy by Isaiah — “He was afflicted, yet He opened not
His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her
shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth,” Isaiah 53:7 — were only exasperated by it the more; for
they saw in that silence an accusation against themselves that confused and
overwhelmed them. An issue! They must have an issue to dispatch the
business at once! Caiaphas very soon
found one.
“Again the
high priest asked Him, and said unto Him, I adjure Thee by the living God, that
Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God,” Mark 14:61;
Matthew 26:63.
It is very
important to notice the sudden change in the manner of the accusation. There is, in fact, no longer any question
either as regards the witnesses or their testimony. Caiaphas, so to speak, now throws all the evidence into the
wastebasket, and declares the testimony that had been so dishonorably obtained
and shamelessly given, insufficient, of itself, to condemn the accused. Furthermore, the fact of Caiaphas being
driven, as a last resource, to interrogating the prisoner in the hope of extorting
from Him a confession of guilt, or in some way inducing Him to criminate
Himself, is in itself an involuntary admission that nothing has been found in
Him worthy of death. Why, then, is He
still retained as a criminal?
The
witnesses and their depositions having been put aside, the scene changes, and
Caiaphas, judge and president of the tribunal, becomes a self-constituted
witness and accuser. But in thus
actively arraying himself against Jesus, he openly violates his official
obligations, and in so doing, commits a TWELFTH IRREGULARITY. (See Deuteronomy 19:16, 17.)
A
THIRTEENTH IRREGULARITY is found in the oath that he proffered to Jesus: “I
adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ,
the Son of God.” The law required that
this awful adjuration should be addressed to the witnesses: “Remember that a
heavy responsibility rests upon you. . . . If you cause the accused to be
unjustly condemned, God will require an account of you, even as He did of Cain
for the blood of Abel,” Mishna, Sanhedrim, Chap iv. 5. But it was in all cases the witnesses alone
who were required to take a preliminary oath of the character; for to
administer it to the accused would be to place Him in the alternative of
committing perjury or of criminating himself.
“We have it as a principle of our jurisprudence that no one is to bring
an accusation against himself,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chap. 6.2). But in this iniquitous trial an oath is
required not of the witnesses but of the accused! This serious infraction of the moral and civil law had been
predicted and stigmatized by a prophetic voice: “For they speak against Thee
wickedly, and Thine enemies take thy name in vain,” Psalm 139:20.
As to the interrogatory itself, it was a snare set by
Caiaphas. In adjuring Jesus, in the
name of the living God, to declare whether He was the Son of God or not, He
foresaw that whatever His answer might be, His doom was fixed. Should He answer any question in the
negative — thus He must have reasoned with Himself — He will be condemned as an
impostor, for such He has certainly claimed to be; if in the affirmative, He
will be condemned as a blasphemer.
Thus, a denial was to be treated as no less a crime than an avowal.
“And Jesus
said, I am,” Mark 14:61, 62.
Jesus respects on the lips of the high priest the majesty of the name of
God. He replies to the question,
despite the malice which prompted it, on account of the sacred language in
which it was clothed. He is not deceived
by the dissimulation of the high priest — far from it — but He is ready to do
homage to the divine name, although knowing that in this instance it was basely
employed to entrap Him.
“Then the
high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further
need have we of witnesses? . . . What think ye?” Matthew 26:65, 66.
The denouement is precipitated, and irregularities
are heaped one upon another.
The high
priest tears his clothes — that is to say, gives way to anger. In this act we have a FOURTEENTH
IRREGULARITY, since it is not only a violation of the law enjoining the judge
to comport himself toward the prisoner with gentleness and respect — using in
addressing him such terms as these: “My
son, confess your fault.” My very dear
daughter, what is the cause of your sin?” (Joshua 7:19; Mishnah, Sotah,
1.4) — but it is also a breach of the religious law, which strictly prohibits
the high priest’s tearing his garments even as a sign of mourning. Any ordinary Israelite could, as an emblem
of bereavement, tear his garments, but to the high priest it was forbidden,
because his vestments, being made after the express orders of God, were
figurative of his office. “And he that
is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was
poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his
head, nor rend his clothes,” Leviticus 21:10. Tear thy garments, O Caiaphas!
Before the day closes, the veil of the Temple shall also be torn in
twain, to signify that the Aaronic priesthood and the sacrifices of the Mosaic
Law have been abolished to make place for the eternal priesthood of the high
priest of the new covenant.
“He hath
spoken blasphemy!” In this exclamation
of the chief priest we notice two irregularities:
The FIFTHTEENTH IRREGULARITY consists in the fact of
his pronouncing against the accused the charge of blasphemy without having duly
inquired into the reasonableness of the declaration contained in the response
to the high priest’s question. Caiaphas
had demanded that Jesus should say whether or not He was the Son of God. Jesus had answered, “I am.” Simple justice required that this bold
avowal, presumptuous and even blasphemous though it may have appeared, should
have been examined into with the utmost care.
Order the holy books to be brought in, O Caiaphas! Open them on your tribunal. Read from their sacred pages the various
names and attributes ascribed to the Messiah and Saviour of the world; and above
all, find out from the same source whether He is to be the Son of God. This done, see if such names and attributes
could be appropriately applied to the person before you claiming to be the Son
of God. If, of all the characteristics
and conditions ascribed by the prophets to the Messiah, a single one be wanting
in Him, then proclaim loudly and fearlessly that He has blasphemed. But to pronounce Him a blasphemer without
having given the statement contained in His answer so much as even a
superficial investigation, what iniquity!
Here we find a violation of the simplest obligations belonging to the
office of the president of the Sanhedrim council. The law says, “The judges shall make diligent inquisition,” Deuteronomy
19:8; but in this case, there was not even a simple examination! The Mishnah adds: “The judges shall weigh
[the matter] in the sincerity of their conscience,” (Mishnah Sandedrim,
Chap. 4.5); but here the conscience itself is stifled!
The next or SIXTEENTH IRREGULARITY committed by
Caiaphas in the unwarrantable exclamation, “He has blasphemed!” is that he
virtually forestalls the decision of the other judges. In declaring the answer of Jesus
blasphemous, he deprives the subordinate judges of the freedom of
suffrage. According to the Mishnah, the
formula of his vote, as well as of each of the other judges, should have been
expressed simply, I absolve, or I condemn, (Sanhedrim,
Chap. 5.5). But in his vehement
utterance of a decision prompted not by justice but by malice, he precludes the
possibility of his colleagues differing from him in the character of their
votes; for it is a well-known fact that the decision of the high priest was
considered infallible authority among the Jews.
“What further need have we of witnesses?” Here we have a speech fully as iniquitous as
the other. What! A judge dare deny the
necessity for witnesses, when the law expressly and absolutely demanded
them! For the impartial administration
of justice, the judge was required to make a careful and minute examination of
every witness, putting to them one at a time the following seven questions: “Was it in a year of jubilee? Was it in an ordinary year? In what month? On what day of the month?
At what hour? In what
place? Do you identify the accused?”
(Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chap. 5.1).
But Caiaphas, thirsting for the blood of his victim, tramples under foot
all prescribed forms in his eagerness to reach a speedy termination of the
trial, even proposing to dispense with the calling and hearing of
witnesses. Thus we find him guilty of a
SEVENTEENTH IRREGULARITY.
“What think ye?”
This question forms the EIGHTEENTH IRREGULARITY; for nothing could have
been more irregular than the calling for a public and general vote. The Mishnah
says expressly, “Let the judges, each in his turn, absolve or condemn,” (Sanhedrim,
15.5); but Caiaphas, to end the matter, would have them vote en masse. And through the whole proceeding, what
bitter derision is manifest in the conduct of Caiaphas! He tears his garments as a mark of the
profoundest horror, and in so doing impresses all present with a religious awe;
he proclaims Jesus guilty of the most horrible blasphemy; he declares that
there is no need of further proofs or witnesses; and after all this, he demands
of the other judges an expression of their opinion!
The response of the Sanhedrim was exactly what Caiaphas
had anticipated.
“They answered and said, He is guilty [worthy] of
death,” Matthew 26:66; Mark 14:64.
In this one sentence we find several
irregularities. The first, or the
NINETEENTH in order, is seen in the precipitate assent of the other judges to Caiaphas’s
accusation of blasphemy, instead of first deliberating among themselves, as the
law directs. “Having deferred the trial
to the next day, the judges reassemble by twos, and proceed to reexamine the
whole case,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chapter 5.5).
The next or TWENTIETH IRREGULARITY is as follows: the
sentence was pronounced on the same day the trial began; whereas, according to
law, it should have been deferred to the next day at least. “A criminal case resulting in the acquittal
of the accused may terminate the same day the trial began; but if a sentence
of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day,”
(Mishnah, Sanhedrim, 4.1).
Again, as the judges did not vote one at a time and
in order, it is obvious that the votes could not have been recorded by the two
scribes appointed for that purpose — another irregularity (the TWENTY-FIRST);
for says the Mishnah: “At each
extremity [of the semicircle] a secretary was placed, whose business it was to
record the votes. One of these
secretaries recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other those against
him,” (Sanhedrim, Chapter 4.3).
Such was the night session, prophetically described
by David: “The assembly of the wicked
have enclosed Me,” Psalm 22:16.
Twenty-one irregularities were then committed; and not one of the judges
arose to enter a protest against them.
The evangelist says, “They” — that is, all of them — “said, He is worthy
of death!” In this sententious
exclamation we perceive some expression of the shame and wonder that filled the
minds of the gospel narrators in contemplating the fact that among the
seventy-one members composing the council of the Sanhedrim there was not a
single one conscientious and brave enough to protest against proceedings so vile
and unprecedented. We must remember;
however, that all who took part in this trial were creatures of Caiaphas, and
no less corrupt than himself.
The Jewish law permitted any spectator at a public
trial to speak a word in defense of the accused. To do so was even considered a pious and meritorious act; but on
this memorable night, not a voice from all that crowd of lookers-on was raised
in His behalf. The only two persons who
would have been likely to offer a favorable word for Jesus were members of the
Sanhedrim, but not present on that occasion.
These were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who refused to attend an
irregular session held on the solemn night of the Passover. Remembering how at a former session of the
trial the protestations of Nicodemus against the condemnation of Jesus were
disdainfully set aside, John 7:52, they knew that nothing they could say
on this occasion would carry any weight with the fierce and determined
Caiaphas; and so they purposely absented themselves. Referring to Joseph of Arimathea, the evangelist says, “he had
not consented to the counsel and deed of them,” Luke 23:51. And from the courage formerly displayed by
Nicodemus in defense of Jesus, we may safely infer that he too was unwilling to
take part in a trial so illegally conducted.
We then see Jesus before his accusers defenseless and
alone. When the eleven sons of Jacob
concerted to put Joseph to death, two of them, Reuben and Judah, struck with
remorse, nade some feeble protests against the murder of their innocent
brother: “Come, and let us sell him to
the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and
our flesh,” Genesis 37:27. When
the treacherous Ahithophel would have persuaded the council to pursue and put
to death the lawful King David, a stranger (Hushai, the Archite) took up the
defense of the unfortunate monarch, who was on the point of being betrayed by
his subjects into the hands of his
rebellious son, II Samuel 15:32, 17:1-25. But no compassionate voice is raised in defense of Him who is
greater than Joseph, and who is a King and a Father in a higher sense than
David.
The members of the Sanhedrim having unanimously
ratified the death sentence passed by Caiaphas upon Jesus, a signal was given
the soldiers in attendance to seize and guard him for the rest of the
night.
A strange scene was then enacted: “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; Mark 14:65.
Thus after His condemnation, Jesus was delivered to
soldiers and menials, who were left free to perpetrate upon His person all
possible outrages. Some authors have
regarded that night of torture as the most cruel scene in the drama of the
Passion. And, indeed, for barbarity and
diabolism it stands without a parallel in history. Among all civilized nations a prisoner, whatever may be his guilt,
is under the protection of the law until the arrival of the time for the execution
of his sentence, and nowhere do we find judges tolerating the commission by
their soldiers and servants of excessive cruelties upon a prisoner under their
charge.
As these brutalities were committed after the
adjournment of the night session, we shall not add them to the list of
irregularities under enumeration; but we would emphasize the shamefully
culpable weakness of Caiaphas, who, in permitting such atrocities under his own
roof displayed a cowardice equal to that of the Philistines in their treatment
of Samson. Like Samson, Jesus was
surrounded by those who, basely taking advantage of His misfortunes, heaped
upon Him the vilest raillery and insult.
Such was the cruel fulfillment of prophecy.