The Unjust Trials of Jesus

Published by Stanley Pouw in 2015 · 14 June 2015

Our Lord Jesus is offering His life for the sins of men and women. Look at Matthew 26:57, 59-61 which gives us the record of the illegal, unjust trials of Jesus. We want to discuss the nature of the trial of Christ so that we might understand how illegal and unjust it was, and how, in spite of that, it demonstrates His holy, perfect majesty. Let us look at a little background on the judicial system.

The Jews have always prided themselves on their sense of fairness, their sense of equity, and rightly so, for they have basically a foundation of justice that has benefited the whole world. The sense of justice and jurisprudence that we have, even in America, finds its origins in the Judaic justice system, as do all other equitable systems around the world.

The Jewish system of law and judgment was predicated on one Old Testament passage, primarily, and that is Deuteronomy 16:18-20, “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. 19 You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. 20 Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you.”

Now, there you have God’s standard for justice; local judges, judging the people with fairness and righteousness, not being partial, never taking a bribe, justice and only justice. Now, as they began to work out the application of Deuteronomy 16, it was decided that in any area where there were 120 men as heads of families, there was to be a local council. It was really a community that was large enough to have a synagogue, and also this local council.

This council became known as the Sanhedrin. That is a Hebrew term, but it is off of a Greek term which means “sitting together,” to make judgments, to decide issues of civil and criminal aspects. The council would be made up of 23 men taken from the elders of the village. Always an odd number, so that in any voting there would always be a majority. They acted as judges and jury in all matters. And one of them would be called the chief ruler.

Now, in Jerusalem, the capital city, the religious center of the life of Israel, there was the Great Sanhedrin. This was composed most likely of 24 chief priests, 24 elders, 23 scribes plus the high priest which makes 71. They were the final court for appeal. The men who were on that group were chosen because of their wisdom and their proven track record of impartiality.

There were three things in criminal procedure that the laws upheld in the Sanhedrin guaranteed to a person. Number one: a public trial. Everything was to be open, so that no one was wrongly accused and forced into some kind of penalty without a fair trial. The judges were always under the scrutiny of the people, who were able to see what was going on. Secondly, the Sanhedrin guaranteed the right of self-defense. There was to be someone who provided a defense for the accused. Thirdly, no one could be convicted of anything unless proven to be guilty by two or three witnesses.

Those things remain with us even today under the basic guarantee of courts in our own society. Being a false witness was a crime punished with the same penalty the false witness sought to bring. And that comes from Deuteronomy 19:16-19, “If a false witness accuses a man of wrongdoing then both men, the one accused and the accuser, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, and thus you shall purge the evil from among you.”

And in a case where death was prescribed as the sentence, the execution could only be accomplished on the third day. The day in the middle was a day to make sure that all the evidence was in. And the witnesses who witnessed against the person with the death penalty were the ones who had to cast the first stone in the execution. So the witnesses were the executioners. So you wanted to make certain that your testimony was true, because you would not only be guilty of lying, you would be guilty of murder.

Do you remember in John 8 when these Pharisees accused this woman of committing adultery? And Jesus said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” In other words, if she is guilty, then we are going to execute her, and you that have witnessed against her will have to cast the stones. But only if you have not done the same thing, then you have a right to cast that stone. The witnesses were the executioners, and that was the system.

Now, let us learn a little bit about the Sanhedrin trial procedure. If you cause the condemnation of a person that is not guilty, his blood will fall on you, and God will demand of you an account. Nowadays an oath is required like, “Put your hand on the Bible and swear before God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” A person who does not have the full use of his physical and moral faculties cannot testify. And Jewish law also says: no person can himself testify against himself, and on the basis of that single testimony be held guilty.

The witnesses are to attest to the identity of the accused, to depose to the month, day, hour and circumstances of the crime. In other words, it cannot be hearsay or generalities. “After an examination of these proofs, the judges who believe the party innocent stated their reasons. Those who believed him guilty spoke afterwards, and with great moderation. If one of the judges was entrusted by the accused with his defense, or if he wished in his own name to present any elucidations in favor of innocence, he was allowed to do that. But this liberty was not granted to him if his opinion was in favor of condemnation.” They really leaned on the merciful side.

“When the accused person himself wished to speak, they gave the most profound attention, and when the discussion was finished, one of the judges recapitulated the case and they removed all the spectators.” Two scribes took down the votes of the judges, 23 was a quorum. “Eleven votes out of 23 was sufficient to acquit, it required 13 to convict. If a majority of votes acquitted, the accused was discharged instantly. If he was to be punished, the judges postponed pronouncing sentence until the third day. And during the intermediate day, they had to fast.

Then on the morning of the third day, they returned to the judgment seat, and each judge who had not changed his opinion said, ‘I continue of the same opinion and condemn.” Anyone who had first condemned might at this sitting acquit, but he who had once acquitted could not change his mind to condemn. If a majority condemned, two magistrates immediately accompanied the condemned person out to the place of punishment.” So they executed him on the same day they sentenced him. Ecclesiastes 8 says with swift punishment you decrease crime.

So it looked like these people have a high sense of justice, mixed with a sense of mercy. And they have built safeguards here that are going to make it pretty good for someone who is innocent, because you have many opportunities to come back in with testimony. But it didn’t turn out to be so for Christ. In the Jewish trial of Jesus Christ, they violated every single law of justice known to them.

The axiom of the Sanhedrin was this: the Sanhedrin is to save, not destroy life. Well, that wasn’t true in this case. No criminal trial could be carried through the night – this one was. The judges who condemned a criminal had to have a day in between before the execution, and they had to fast all day – but they didn’t, they killed Jesus the same day. There had to be witnesses who witnessed against Him, but there were none. There had to be defense, but there was no defense. There was not even an indictment.

Jesus had two major trials. First was a Jewish religious trial, and then a Roman secular trial. Because the Jews were an occupied people, Rome was in authority over them, and the Jews did not have the right of execution. They couldn’t kill a criminal. The Romans reserved that right. So the Jews could condemn Jesus to death, but they couldn’t execute Him. So whatever they accomplished in their religious trial, they had to sell the Romans on, because the Romans were the ones that were able to kill Jesus.

The Jewish trial and the Gentile trial each have three phases. So there are really six different trials Jesus was involved in. The Jewish trial began when Jesus was first taken to Annas, who sent Him to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night, and then Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin met again in the morning to try to legitimatize their evil deed. Now, after they had finished their work, they took Him to the Romans, to Pilate. Then Pilate sent Him to Herod, and then Herod sent Him back to Pilate, who condemned Him to death. All of them violated justice.

In all these trials leading up to the execution of Jesus Christ, they did not find anything wrong about Him. They wanted Him dead, and so they had to invent means to bring about His death. The sentence was already determined, but it was the crime they didn’t have. Now, let us begin with the first aspect: the illegal, unjust arraignment. Look at verse 57, “And they that had laid hold on Jesus, led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.” But Matthew doesn’t give us the phase before that, which is in John 18.

In John 18:12-13, we come to the initial arraignment, “So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.” Here John helps us here to fill in the whole story. In studying the gospels, it’s a composite. The life of Christ is given in four different paintings, and each one emphasizes different features and aspects of the same scene. And so, first He was led to Annas, and He comes like a criminal, bound to be offered as a sacrifice.

Now Annas despised Jesus Christ. He was a threat to his security, his power, his prestige and everything. He resents Jesus’ holiness because he is so utterly sinful. Everything about Jesus caused him anger, and he is under the direction of Satan himself and all his demons. “This is your hour,” Jesus said, “and the power of darkness.” And so they send Jesus to him, in his house, which is illegal because it is at night and no such procedures were allowed.

Annas had been high priest for 20 years before this, Caiaphas was now the high priest. That’s interesting because under God’s design, high priests were high priests for life. But it had become a political position, which was bought and sold. It was so connected with being able to bow to Rome that high priests came and went rather rapidly. But when Annas went out as high priest, five of his sons and one son-in-law, Caiaphas, who married his daughter, succeeded him, so he maintained control in all criminal temple proceedings.

And so when a Jew came he would bring either a sacrifice or an offering. If you brought some coins as an offering, you couldn’t put pagan coinage in there, because they were inscribed with a pagan image which was considered an idol. So he had to exchange it for temple coinage. And the money changers were charging the people way more than they should.

And if a Jew came in with his lamb or a turtledove, he must have the priests examine the animal to see if it had no blemish. And if you didn’t buy that animal in the temple, it was almost always blemished. The first thing Jesus did when He came to the city of Jerusalem in John 2:13-17, was cleanse the temple. He went in and overturned the tables and threw everybody out. Now, that was His initial contact with Annas, and now you understand why Annas hated Jesus, right?

So Annas had to come up with some indictment against Jesus, and bring Him into the Sanhedrin, condemn Him and execute Him. Now look at John 18:19, “The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.” Here Annas violates all sense of justice. If you bring a person in for an arraignment, you tell them what wrong they have done. You don’t ask them to talk in generalities, hoping you can uncover a crime for which you have already given a sentence. This is illegal and unjust.

Verse 20-21, “Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” Jesus in effect says, “If you have got a case, present it, Annas, don’t ask Me, I can’t incriminate Myself. Annas was embarrassed and frustrated. Annas was no match for the infinite mind of Jesus Christ.

Verse 22, “When He had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” But the Lord basically offered no retaliation. 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When Jesus was reviled, He did not revile in return.” He was ready, He had settled that in the garden, in the Father’s will. John 18: 23, “Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?”

Let’s look again at Matthew 26:57, “Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.” And according to Mark 14:53, it says all of them were there. But based on Luke 23:50-51, there was at least one that wasn’t there. Joseph of Arimathea was not there, because it says there that the man, who gave his tomb to Jesus, was “a good and righteous man, who did not consent to the death of Christ with them.”

But since Annas failed to bring a charge, they had to become prosecutors. They had to invent a crime and then try it. Look at verse 59, “Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death.” The only way you can kill an innocent man is to have people lie about him. So they went out then, in the middle of the night, trying to find some liars, who would come and do the very thing which their own law doesn’t allow them to do.

Jesus was not condemned because of something He had done. And verse 60 says it, “but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.” Mark 14:56 says, “For many bore false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together.” Verse 60 continues, “At last two came forward,” verse 61, “and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”

Mark 14:58 says, “These two witnesses said, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and within three days I will build another without hands.’” Even the testimony in Matthew differs with the testimony in Mark. In John 2:19, Jesus said, “You destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it,” and verse 21 says, “But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” The problem is the two of them didn’t agree, and the priests knew it; and they dropped the issue right after this.

You see, the only people on trial this day really were the people who were accusing Jesus, right? And they show themselves to be wretched, wicked, sinful, unjust men. Christ will always, by His very presence, mark those who are of Satan. When you come into confrontation with Christ, you will be exposed for who they really were. Let’s pray.