30
The Sinless Savior Before the Sinister Sanhedrin
(Luke 22:63–71)
Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming. When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (22:63–71)
The Jewish people of Jesus’ day were justly proud of their system of jurisprudence, which was the most carefully constructed one in existence. It was in many respects even superior to our current justice system. Since God is a God of truth, truth was central to Israel’s system of justice.
From the very outset God stressed to Israel how essential it was that all judges be focused on the pursuit of truth. When they were about to enter the Promised Land and be established as a nation, God commanded them,
You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you. (Deut. 16:18–20)
By the time of Christ, Israel’s judicial system had become well established. Every town with at least 120 men who were heads of households had a local court known as a Sanhedrin. This council, made up of twenty-three men (seven or three in smaller towns), acted as judge and jury in all legal matters. The Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the final judicial authority in Israel, comparable to the Supreme Court of the United States. It consisted of seventy men from three categories (Mark 14:53): chief priests (mostly Sadducees), elders (religious and secular aristocrats), and scribes (mostly Pharisees).
The law mandated three requirements in a criminal proceeding: a public trial, a defense for the accused, and a confirmation of guilt by two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; cf. Heb. 10:28). Because the last point was crucial to a just verdict, the law prescribed a severe penalty for false witnesses—the punishment that the accused would have received if he had been guilty was to be inflicted on the liars:
If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deut. 19:16–19)
The rules were particularly strict in capital cases:
On the day of the trial, the executive officers of justice caused the accused person to make his appearance. At the feet of the Elders were placed men who, under the name of auditors, or candidates, followed regularly the sittings of the Council. The papers in the case were read; and the witnesses were called in succession. The president addressed this exhortation to each of them: “It is not conjectures, or whatever public rumour has brought to thee, that we ask of thee; consider that a great responsibility rests upon thee: that we are not occupied by an affair, like a case of pecuniary interest, in which the injury may be repaired. If thou causest the condemnation of a person unjustly accused, his blood, and the blood of all the posterity of him, of whom thou wilt have deprived the earth, will fall upon thee; God will demand of thee an account, as he demanded of Cain an account of the blood of Abel. Speak.”
A woman could not be a witness, because she would not have the courage to give the first blow to the condemned person; nor could a child, that is irresponsible, nor a slave, nor a man of bad character, nor one whose infirmities prevent the full enjoyment of his physical and moral faculties. The simple confession of an individual against himself, or the declaration of a prophet, however renowned, would not decide a condemnation. The Doctors say—“We hold it as fundamental, that no one shall prejudice himself. If a man accuses himself before a tribunal, we must not believe him, unless the fact is attested by two other witnesses; and it is proper to remark, that the punishment of death inflicted upon Achan, in the time of Joshua was an exception, occasioned by the nature of the circumstances; for our law does not condemn upon the simple confession of the accused, nor upon the declaration of one prophet alone.”
The witnesses were to attest to the identity of the party, and to depose to the month, day, hour, and circumstances of the crime. After an examination of the proofs, those judges who believed the party innocent stated their reasons; those who believed him guilty spoke afterwards, and with the greatest moderation. If one of the auditors, or candidates, was entrusted by the accused with his defence, or if he wished in his own name to present any elucidations in favour of innocence, he was admitted to the seat, from which he addressed the judges and the people. But this liberty was not granted to him, if his opinion was in favour of condemning. Lastly; when the accused person himself wished to speak, they gave the most profound attention. When the discussion was finished, one of the judges recapitulated the case; they removed all the spectators; two scribes took down the votes of the judges; one of them noted those which were in favour of the accused, and the other, those which condemned him. Eleven votes, out of twenty-three, were sufficient to acquit; but it required thirteen to convict. If any of the judges stated that they were not sufficiently informed, there were added two more Elders, and then two others in succession, till they formed a council of sixty-two, which was the number of the Grand Council. If a majority of votes acquitted, the accused was discharged instantly; if he was to be punished, the judges postponed pronouncing sentence till the third day; during the intermediate day they could not be occupied with anything but the cause, and they abstained from eating freely, and from wine, liquors, and everything which might render their minds less capable of reflection.
On the morning of the third day they returned to the judgment seat. Each judge, who had not changed his opinion, said, I continue of the same opinion and condemn; any one, who at first condemned, might at this sitting acquit; but he who had once acquitted was not allowed to condemn. If a majority condemned, two magistrates immediately accompanied the condemned person to the place of punishment. The Elders did not descend from their seats; they placed at the entrance of the judgment hall an officer of justice with a small flag in his hand; a second officer, on horseback, followed the prisoner, and constantly kept looking back to the place of departure. During this interval, if any person came to announce to the Elders any new evidence favourable to the prisoner, the first officer waved his flag, and the second one, as soon as he perceived it, brought back the prisoner. If the prisoner declared to the magistrates, that he recollected some reasons which had escaped him, they brought him before the judges no less than five times. If no incident occurred, the procession advanced slowly, preceded by a herald who, in a loud voice, addressed the people thus: “This man (stating his name and surname) is led to punishment for such a crime; the witnesses who have sworn against him are such and such persons; if any one has evidence to give in his favour, let him come forth quickly.” …
At some distance from the place of punishment, they urged the prisoner to confess his crime, and they made him drink a stupefying beverage, in order to render the approach of death less terrible. (M. Dupin, “The Trial of Jesus Before Caiaphas and Pilate,” in Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice [London: A. Maxwell & Son, 1847], 887–90. Italics in original)
But in their murderous zeal to convict and execute Jesus, the Jerusalem Sanhedrin violated the lofty principles of fairness and meticulous concern for justice that marked the Jewish legal tradition. Those violations included,
a. The proceedings took place at the high priest’s home and not in the temple (m. Sanh. 11.2).
b. Jesus was tried without a defense (m. Sanh. 4.1 says that both sides of a case must be heard).
c. Jesus was accused of blasphemy without actually blaspheming in the technical sense of the term by pronouncing the divine name (m. Sanh. 7.5).
d. The verdict came in the space of one day, when two days were required for a capital trial (m. Sanh. 4.1).
e. Jesus was tried on a feast day. …
f. Contradictory testimony nullifies evidence (m. Sanh. 5.2).
g. A pronouncement of guilt by the high priest is contrary to the normal order, which should start with the least senior members (m. Sanh. 4.2). (Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996], 1792)
Jesus’ trials unfolded in six phases; three religious trials before the Jewish leaders, and three civil trials before the Gentile rulers Pilate and Herod. The three Jewish tribunals began shortly after midnight, when Jesus was brought before Annas, and lasted until after dawn, when the Sanhedrin formally condemned Him.
Christ’s three illegal and unjust trials before the Jewish authorities may be discussed under five headings: the illegal, unjust questioning, the illegal, unjust convening, the illegal, unjust conspiracy, the illegal, unjust condemnation, and the illegal, unjust conduct. To offer the complete picture, material from Matthew and Mark will be used to supplement Luke’s account.
THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST QUESTIONING
After His arrest in Gethsemane, Jesus was taken first to Annas (John 18:12–13), who had been high priest from A.D. 6 to A.D. 15, when Pilate’s predecessor as Roman governor removed him from office. Although no longer the high priest, he remained the real power behind the scenes (five of his sons and one of his grandsons had succeeded him in the position and Caiaphas, the current high priest, was his son-in-law).
Annas was notorious for his greed and immense wealth, which had largely come from the businesses in the temple that he and his sons controlled. For example, moneychangers changed foreign currency into Jewish money (at exorbitant rates), which alone could be used to pay the temple tax. Another racket Annas profited from was the sale of animals for sacrifice. People who brought their own animals to the temple would have them rejected by the priests; commonly only those sold there (at exorbitant prices) would be deemed acceptable. Annas and his cohorts would take their cut of the profits from both the moneychangers and the sellers of animals (cf. John 2:14). Annas hated Jesus, because His two assaults on the temple operations affected his economic operations. The scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand, hated and opposed Christ because He exposed their hypocrisy and attacked their self-righteous religious system. Their opposition was theological.
Annas’s questioning of Jesus (John 18:19) flagrantly violated established jurisprudence. Since he was no longer the high priest and served in no official capacity, he had no legal authority to conduct what in modern terms would be considered an arraignment or preliminary hearing. Further, his questioning was an attempt to lead Jesus to incriminate Himself, an effort forbidden by Jewish law, just as the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does today.
Christ’s reply (vv. 20–21) challenged Annas to investigate the matter legitimately by questioning those who heard His teaching. Seeking to gain favor with the powerful priest, one of the officers struck Jesus and rebuked Him for His alleged disrespect for Annas. This was the first physical maltreatment Christ received. Striking a prisoner, particularly one not accused of a crime, was also illegal, as Jesus pointed out (v. 23; cf. Acts 23:2–3). But this was not an impartial hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence to bring Jesus to trial. The decision had already been made to put Him to death (John 11:53), and Annas was fishing for some legal grounds to justify that action.
Unable to come up with any evidence to use against Jesus, “Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (John 18:24). While Annas had been questioning the Lord, Caiaphas had been hurriedly gathering the members of the Sanhedrin. When they were all (Mark 14:53) assembled, the second phase of the Lord’s religious trial before the Jewish authorities began.
Like His hearing before Annas, this was also an illegal, clandestine trial; the judges were the lawbreakers. No trial was permitted at night, in private, in a house, or on a feast day (the members of the Sanhedrin celebrated Passover from sundown Thursday to sundown Friday [John MacArthur, John 12–21; The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 2008), 62–63]); there was no indictment and no witnesses; the Sanhedrin was not allowed to originate charges, but adjudicated only those brought before it; they had bribed the traitor, Judas, to lead them to Jesus so they could arrest Him. But the outcome of this trial, like Christ’s hearing before Annas, was predetermined. The entire Sanhedrin would now attempt to do what Annas could not, and come up with a justification for the execution verdict.
THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONSPIRACY
Desperately, “the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death” (Matt. 26:59). For the highest court in Israel to manufacture a crime and then try to use the testimony of false witnesses to condemn an innocent man (Luke 23:4, 14–15) is shocking and unthinkable. They were unable to find any credible witnesses (Matt. 26:60); those they did secure contradicted each other (Mark 14:56). Finally two witnesses accused Jesus of claiming He would destroy the temple (Mark 14:58), by misinterpreting His words in John 2:19 as a reference to the Jerusalem temple instead of His body. Their testimony, however, was not consistent (Mark 14:59). Additionally, under Jewish law no one could be prosecuted for something he said. Adding to the illegality of this trial was the Sanhedrin’s failure to call any witnesses in defense of Christ, despite His challenge to Annas to interview potential witnesses (John 18:21).
The travesty continued. Like Annas, the entire Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:59) had failed to produce a single valid charge against Jesus, so that after two hearings, they still had no case against Him.
THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONDEMNATION
Frustrated by Jesus’ calm refusal to participate in this mockery of justice, Caiaphas demanded to know why He refused to answer. He “stood up and said to Him, ‘Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?’” (Matt. 26:62). But the Lord still remained silent (v. 63), refusing to give any credence to the testimony of false witnesses, and thereby indicting the Sanhedrin that had called them. He would also remain silent before Pilate (Matt. 27:13–14; John 19:9) and Herod (Luke 23:8–9).
Finally, desperate because the Sanhedrin was unable to identify and manufacture evidence for a real crime, Caiaphas had to go back to something Jesus had said. He focused on Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah and Son of God. Putting Him under oath, he said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Jesus replied, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). The last vision the world has of Christ will not be of Him on the cross; He will return in glory to judge the wicked and establish His earthly kingdom.
Caiaphas was undoubtedly aware that Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah. Early in His teaching He had applied the messianic text of Isaiah 61:1–2 to Himself (Luke 4:21). When a Samaritan woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us” (John 4:25), Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26). On Monday of Passion Week He had accepted the massive messianic praise of the frenzied crowds. In response to Caiaphas’s charge, Jesus swore by the living God that He was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, the anointed king, and the Son of God (Matt. 26:63–64).
Christ’s affirmation of His deity was all Caiaphas needed to hear. In a mock display of horror and grief over God being so dishonored, “the high priest tore his robes and said, ‘He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy’” (Matt. 26:65). The high priest, hypocritically acting as though Jesus had blasphemed, was the real blasphemer. Since the penalty for blasphemy was death (Lev. 24:16; John 19:7), the Sanhedrin no longer needed to search for false witnesses to testify against Christ, but rendered their verdict. There is no record of a proper vote, which would have begun, in the traditional manner, with the junior members and progressed to the most senior ones. Unilaterally, the high priest pronounced Jesus guilty, and in what was more the act of a lynch mob than the formal judgment of the highest court in the land, the rest of the Sanhedrin cried out, “He deserves death!” (v. 66). Here is yet another illegality in the trials of Christ: in Jewish law, a unanimous vote by the Sanhedrin negated a guilty verdict, since it was considered evidence of a lack of mercy, or even worse, a conspiracy—like this verdict.
THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONDUCT
Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming. When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (22:63–71)
Shockingly, after condemning Jesus the Sanhedrin degenerated into little more than a rabble. Heedless of their dignified position as aristocrats and judges on the supreme court in the land, they completely abandoned self-control and spewed their vitriolic hatred at the Lord Jesus Christ. “They spat in His face” (Matt. 26:7) as Jesus predicted they would (Luke 18:32)—because to spit on someone was the ultimate sign of contempt (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9). They also “beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him” (Matt. 26:67). They were mocking Him and beating Him, and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming. When the members of the Sanhedrin had had their fill of abusing Jesus, they turned Him over to the officers of the temple police, who continued the abuse (Mark 14:65).
This vile, ugly treatment came as no surprise to the omniscient Lord. In Luke 18:31 “He took the twelve aside and said to them, ‘Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished.’” The Jewish people’s treatment of Him was in keeping with their past mistreatment of the prophets (cf. 4:24; 6:22–23; 11:47–50; 13:34–35; 20:9–16; John 4:44; Acts 7:52; Rom. 11:3; 1 Thess. 2:15; Heb. 11:37–38; James 5:10).
After they finished abusing Christ, when it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber. As noted earlier, the previous hearings before Annas and Caiaphas were blatantly illegal. But they were careful to observe the correct legal protocol in this theatrical show trial, which was designed to put a veneer over their corruption of truth and justice.
Going through the motions as if this were a fair, impartial trial they asked Jesus, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” Before giving His answer, He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer.” Jesus made it clear that the Sanhedrin was not concerned about the evidence, fairness, truth, or justice. But His claim to be the Son of God was the truth, so He reaffirmed His identity by declaring: “From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” Son of Man was the designation for Messiah in Daniel 7:13–14:
I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.
The Son of Man was to be given “dominion, glory and a kingdom” and be served by all the world. That is consistent with being given the most exalted place, the seat at the right hand of the power of God, a promise made directly by the Father to the Son in Psalm 110:1: “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’” (cf. Matt. 22:41–45; Acts 2:33–35; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 10:12–13). Making sure for the record what Jesus was saying, they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” to which the Lord replied, “Yes, I am.” Reprising their roles from the earlier illegal hearing at Caiaphas’s house, they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”
By condemning the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), the members of the Sanhedrin condemned themselves; all those who wrongly judge Jesus Christ will be rightly judged by Him. They ignored His miracles, which gave evidence that He was who He claimed to be (John 10:25, 38; 14:11), and His unparalleled teaching (Matt. 7:28–29; John 7:46). As a result, they condemned themselves to hell, as do all who fail to make the right judgment concerning Christ.