Church Talks
THE SIX TRIALS OF JESUS
[Talk by John E. Enslen at a community sunrise service held at East Chapel Methodist Church in Millbrook, Alabama on Easter 2013.]
Events in the Days Before the Trials
1,980 years ago, on the Sunday morning that began Passover week, Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled prophecy by riding triumphantly into Jerusalem on a donkey. (See Matt. 21:2 and 7; Zech. 9:9) There were jubilant throngs waiving palm branches which they cast before his pathway as he approached. (See John 12:13; Matt. 21:8) That evening, for safety and comfort, he stayed with friends in nearby Bethany, the town wherein lived Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. (See Matt. 21:17; Mark 11:11; John 11:1)
On Monday, for the second time in three years, and to the enragement of the chief priests and scribes, Jesus cleared the temple courtyards of moneychangers and those who sold animals for sacrificial ordinances. (John 2:13-16; Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15)
On Tuesday, after again spending the evening in Bethany, he returned to the temple and taught the people with parables and confounded those who questioned his authority or who sought to entrap him into saying something for which he might be arrested. He foretold of the future destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and warned of the signs that would precede his Second Coming. (Matt. 21-25; Mark 11-14; Luke 20-21)
It was an incredibly busy holiday week—a celebration of the freedom gained about 1,500 years previously from Pharaoh’s enslavement in Egypt. Before the Passover week concluded, more than 250,000 paschal lambs would be slain within the temple court, and a portion of their blood symbolically sprinkled at the foot of the altar of sacrifice.
On Thursday evening of that week, a somber Jesus met with his apostles in an upper room to partake of a meal which would come to be known as the Last Supper. (Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19) The meal was followed chronologically by the washing of his apostles’ feet (John 13:5-12), the foretelling of Judas’ betrayal (John 13:21;26), the revealing of a new commandment that they should love one another as he had loved them (John 13:34; 15:12;17), the declaration that if they truly loved him they would keep his commandments (John 14:15;21), the promise that the Holy Ghost would become their Comforter in his absence (John 14:26; 15:26), and a powerful intercessory prayer to his Father in Heaven (John 17). Then Jesus and his apostles, less Judas, made their way to the Mount of Olives. (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26; John 18:1)
After giving instructions to his apostles to sustain him with their prayers, he separated himself within the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-38), which means “oil-press.” Motivated by the extent of the horrific, indescribable suffering that commenced to fall upon him, Jesus asked his Father if he could be relieved of this difficult responsibility through some other means. (Matt. 26:39; Luke 22:42) There was no other way, and Jesus did not shrink—a great lesson for us when faced with no acceptable alternative but to endure and remain obedient to our Father’s will, despite the intensity of the affliction.
With his apostles sleeping, (Luke 22:45-46), Jesus obediently pressed forward with his divinely-decreed atoning sacrifice for all mankind. He voluntarily endured incomprehensible pain and agony, the severity of which cannot be known to mortal man—suffering that was mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual. So intensely exquisite was that suffering that he sweat great drops of blood from the pores of his body. (Luke 22:44) The entire weight of fallen humanity was pressed down upon him.
In a resulting state of depletion and exhaustion, as he was departing the Mount of Olives, he was identified by a kiss of betrayal. (Matt. 26:49; Mark 14:44-45; Luke 22:47-48) Jesus submissively allowed himself to be arrested and bound by Roman soldiers. Thus began the criminal proceedings against Jesus the Christ that would ultimately involve six different hearings or judicial audiences.
The Six Criminal Proceedings
HEARING NO. 1: In those early morning hours of Friday, the bound Christ was taken first to Annas. (John 18:13) This was irregular and inappropriate according to Hebrew law, the law by which we are to properly judge all proceedings of the Sanhedrin. Annas had been deposed as presiding high priest some 20 years previously, but he still exerted a corrupting influence over the judicial hierarchy. Following his removal from office after six years of service, he continued to direct judicial affairs behind the scenes by influencing the successive appointments of five sons, one grandson, and his son-in-law as successor presiding high priest.
Annas and his extended family had enormous wealth and power because of the revenues derived from the temple tribute system. There was a temple poll tax that had to be paid annually in a special type of temple coinage, which could only be obtained from temple money changers at a rate unfavorable to the payor. Furthermore, doves, pigeons, sheep, and oxen that had been pronounced ceremonially clean for sacrifice, had to be purchased on the temple grounds with temple coinage at exorbitant prices. As previously mentioned, Jesus had twice driven the “den of thieves” from the temple grounds, thus incurring the wrath of Annas and his extended family, who were already highly irritated that Christ was successfully gathering converts from among the Jewish faithful.
We have no record of the conversations relating to the audience before Annas, but this we know: this illegal proceeding should never have been held in the first place.
HEARING NO. 2: Jesus was next taken to the son-in-law of Annas named Caiaphas, who as the chief high priest presided over the Sanhedrin. (Matt. 26:57; John 18:24) The Sanhedrin was the ecclesiastical body having judicial jurisdiction over serious criminal charges committed by Jews. Caiaphas should have recused himself because he had been plotting the death of Jesus for days. (John 11:47-53; see also Matt. 26:3-4; John 18:14)
Instead of being taken to the official courtroom of the Sanhedrin, Jesus was illegally taken to the personal palace of Caiaphas. (Matt. 26:57-58; John 18:15) Certain members of the Sanhedrin had obviously been pre-notified of the expedition to arrest Jesus, for they had conspiratorially already gathered to the palace of Caiaphas prior to the appearance of Jesus for arraignment.
But not only was the place for a capital trial inappropriate, so was the time (assuming that the later Talmud continued to express an earlier prohibition against trials conducted in the night time). Trials were not allowed to be conducted in the night. There was another law which made it illegal to conduct a trial on the eve of a feast day. Thus, the Sanhedrin had amazingly struck out from a legal standpoint on the date, time, and place for the trial of Jesus.
It is near certain that all 72 members of the Sanhedrin were not present, and there has been some speculation that less than a legal quorum of 23 may have been privy to the hierarchal conspiracy.
Prior to being first indicted by accusers, the correct procedure required by the Hebrew code, Caiaphas wrongfully subjected Jesus to a personal interrogation regarding his doctrinal teachings. In other words, Caiaphas sought to require Jesus to testify against himself, another violation of the law.
Jesus actually protested against the lack of accusers and against being made to testify, stating: “Why asketh thou me? Ask them which heard me what I have said unto them. Behold, they know what I have said. I spake openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogues, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing.” (John 18:19-20)
For taking this perfectly legal position, Jesus was summarily judged, condemned, and punished by a guard who slapped him and instructed him to answer the questions of Caiaphas. (See John 18:22)
Instead of the proceeding being initiated by accusers who came forth to invoke the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin initiated the proceedings and then belatedly searched for potential accusers. False witnesses were secured and the required standard warning against bearing false witness was not administered. Still, the mouths of no two witnesses agreed on any viable charge until finally two witnesses stated that Jesus had said he could destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, something only a God could do. (See Matt. 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19-20)
Caiaphas was hoping for a charge of sedition against the Roman government, but had to settle for a charge of Messianic blasphemy when Jesus answered affirmatively his question, “Art thou the Christ?” (Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:67-71)
In regard to the claim of being able to destroy and rebuild the temple, Jesus added: “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 26:64) With that proclamation, Jesus was immediately found guilty of a capital crime—blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God. His guilt was based upon his own confession.
Of course, there could be no crime in the claim of Messiahship or divine Sonship or his being the very Christ except the claim be false. But there was no factual or evidentiary inquiry made into the merits of Jesus’ claim. The claims of Christ were simply too preposterous to the prideful to warrant their serious investigation, or perhaps their personal monetary interests blinded their judgment.
Christ was not allowed to call witnesses to prove that his birth had been marked with the scripturally prescribed prophetic circumstances, that he had raised from death to life three different people, that he had performed a continuing array of diverse miracles and healings that bore good fruit, that he had walked upon the water and calmed the elements. His entire 33-year life from birth to that moment had fulfilled a score of long-recorded prophecies relating to a forthcoming Messiah.
As to the charge of blasphemy, it appears that a required vote was neither taken nor recorded on the issue. The angry, illegal rending of his clothes by Caiaphus was a sufficient demonstration to all of the judges of the ridiculousness of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah. (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63) Any of the Sanhedrin who may have disagreed, feared to speak up for Jesus. The lack of opposition through silence was allowed to equate a vote of unanimity.
Thus was Jesus convicted by the supreme tribunal of the Jewish nation, the Great Sanhedrin, of the most heinous offense known under the Hebrew code—blasphemy.
[As an aside, I will mention that the lack of a dissenting vote in this capital case raised another point of illegality. Under a provision which seems strange to us, if the sitting court voted unanimously for guilt in a capital case, the verdict must be set aside on the assumption that such a unanimous vote was an indication that no defender was present and the verdict was the product of a conspiracy. Perhaps it is less strange when you consider that 72 judges normally constituted the entire court. By this rule, the judgment against Jesus was also void.]
HEARING NO. 3: In capital cases, the Jewish law required an automatic appeal to be heard after a full day of fasting and prayer by the judges. Without waiting the required day, and presumably without fasting and prayer, the Sanhedrin waited only for bare daylight before reconvening. In the meantime, just as Jesus had prophesied, (Mark 10:34) the Sanhedrin allowed any present so desiring to spit in Jesus’ blindfolded face, strike him, and taunt him by asking that he prophesy as to who it was that struck him. (Matt. 26:67; Mark 14:65)
During this appellate trial, likely attended by a larger number of the Sadducees, scribes, and elders, Jesus was again compelled to testify against himself with the same result, the affirmance of his conviction by the whole council.
Historically, one so convicted would have been punished in the Jewish method by stoning to death. (Lev. 24:16) But fearing the numerous followers of Jesus and wanting to move any focus of subsequent inquiry away from the judicial machinations of the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas and his followers sought for a Roman execution. Under Roman law, the standard method of execution for a capital offence was crucifixion. The Sanhedrinists found themselves needing to convert their capital conviction for a Jewish religious offense into a capital conviction for a Roman political offense.
HEARING NO. 4: Jesus was delivered that morning to Pontius Pilate, the military governor of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (ee’-dumh), whose normal residence was in Caesarea Palestina. He happened to be in the city that week to help preserve order during the current festive occasion. He, as a considerate Gentile, came out of his judgment hall and house chambers to meet with the Sanhedrin so that they might not be subjected to the leavened bread within his house chambers. (John 18:28-29) This leavened bread would have defiled the Sanhedrinists and made them unclean for participation in the Passover feast. By an ironic comparison which features the pinnacle of hypocrisy, any uncleanliness resulting from a much weightier judicial murder was not of the slightest concern compared with the seriousness of being in the presence of leavened bread.
The Sanhedrinists were still led by Caiaphas, who continued to act more like an aggressive prosecutor than a neutral judge. To Pilate’s inquiry as to the nature of the charge, Caiaphas flippantly answered, “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” (John 18:30)
The English word “malefactor” has a general meaning of criminal or felon. This translation fails to capture the full meaning of the Greek word which John used to describe the nature of the accusation. That Greek word spelled k-a-k-o-p-o-i-o-s [perhaps pronounced kay-koe-poe’-ee-us] carried a meaning most closely related to an evil sorcerer or a witchcraft practicing wizard who leads people away from God. Instead of being one who went about doing good, Jesus was mischaracterized by his accusers as a devil-possessed magician. Such a person was subject to capital punishment under Jewish law. (Deut. 13:1-2;5; Lev. 20:27; Ex. 22:18) The Scribes and Pharisees had often sought to account for the miracles of Jesus by simply saying he was possessed of the devil or Beelzebub. (Mark 3:22; John 10:19-21)
For different reasons, Roman law also forbade such magic and divination. A miracle worker bent on opposing Rome might threaten the public order. But Pilate was unpersuaded by this accusation that Christ was a magical, wonder-working trickster who threatened Roman rule. (John 18:38) Unimpressed by the position of Caiaphas, Pilate told Caiaphas to judge Jesus according to Jewish law and not bother Pilate. But Caiaphas was not about to give up on a Roman execution which he assumed was essential to prevent a rebellious backlash from the numerous followers of Jesus.
It was at this point that perhaps the most illegal of all the illegalities took place. Caiaphas knew that Pilate, a pagan with many gods, some of whom were mortals, would care absolutely nothing about a charge of blasphemy toward a Jewish God. So Caiaphas and his cohorts abruptly changed again the original conviction of blasphemy, this time to a charge of high treason against the Roman government. The new false charge was stated thusly—“We found this fellow…forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is…a King.” (Luke 22:3) Known by many as “King of the Jews,” Jesus was silent to this new accusation in the presence of the Sanhedrin.
But under Pilate’s private interrogation, Jesus, who had taught to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s, said to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.” Pilate knew this Jesus was no political insurrectionist, no menace or threat to Roman institutions. He was an unarmed pacifist of the peasant class, a mere carpenter, who had warned his followers, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matt. 26:52)
To the large crowd of Jews who had gathered without, Pilate announced an acquittal: “I find in him no fault at all.” (Luke 23:14; John 18:38) The bloodthirsty high priests and scribes and Pharisees and elders, the religious leaders of that day, vehemently insisted that Jesus had been stirring up the people from Galilee to Jerusalem.
Learning that Jesus was a Galilean prompted Pilate to use that circumstance to pay homage to Herod, whom Pilate needed to placate due to past tensions between them. Herod was the vassal ruler of Galilee, and Pilate decided to transfer the bothersome case of this Galilean to him.
HEARING NO. 5: Herod Antipas, also present in the city for the religious holidays, was tetrarch (ruler of 1/4th of an area; see Luke 3:1) of Galilee and Perea. He was the son of the infamous Herod the Great, who in an attempt to slay the Christ child had ordered the murder of all boys age two and under in and around Bethlehem about 33 years earlier. Herod the son, to whom Jesus was taken, had himself ordered the beheading of John the Baptist based upon a well-known whimsical enticement. (See Matt. 14:10; Mark 6:27)
Pleased to now have the guarded Jesus in bonds before him, Herod undertook to question Jesus and, as the unbelieving are prone to do in every age, demand of him the performance of a miracle to prove his divine authority. (See Luke 23:8) But the lengthy interrogation was met only with uninterrupted silence. (See Luke 23:9)
Herod Antipas appears to be the only person in history to whom Jesus is known to have not spoken at all during a face-to-face encounter. Jesus had words of comfort, approbation, instruction, parable, warning, rebuke, protest, and denunciation for penitent sinners, weeping women, prattling children, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, rabbis, the rich, the poor, the afflicted, even for Caiaphas and Pilate. But for Herod, there was only majestic silence.
Highly insulted, the proud Herod resorted to making diabolical, mocking sport of the already suffering, exhausted, sleep-deprived, physically abused Christ. In the end, a frustrated Herod arrayed Jesus in a kingly robe and sent him back to Pilate. (See Luke 23:11)
HEARING NO. 6: Word of the events that had unfolded spread, and a large crowd gathered where Pilate addressed the people: “What will ye that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?” (Mark 15:12) It was the chief priests among them who moved the people to cry out: “Crucify him.” (John 19:6;15; Luke 23:21) Pilate’s concern for executing an innocent man was substantially increased when his wife told him, “Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” (Matt. 27:19)
There was one remaining possible avenue for the prisoner’s release available to Pilate—the practice of pardoning and freeing a prisoner at the annual Passover celebration. (See Matt. 27:17) “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask [for] Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” (Matt. 27:20; see John 18:40; Luke 23:18) Even again Pilate attempted to release Jesus, but the crowd cried out, “Let him be crucified.” (Matt. 27:22-23)
Thus, ironically, Barabbas, a genuine murderer who had taken lives was freed while Jesus who gave life was condemned. (See Mark 15:7) Barabbas, who was actually guilty of insurrection against Rome, (see Mark 15:7) was freed in the place of one who was in truth innocent of insurrection.
As his means of symbolically separating himself from the capitulating judgment he had made, a disappointed Pilate washed his hands before the multitude and self-servingly disclaimed any responsibility, saying: “I am innocent of the blood of this just person….” (Matt. 27:24)
Even after scourging (see Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1), Pilate made subsequent attempts to release Jesus, pleading with his accusers. (John 19:4) Think of it, a Gentile pagan who knows not God pleads with the high priests of Israel for the life of their own Lord. Pilate’s pleas were met with the same heartless refrain, “Crucify him,” plus a veiled threat to report Pilate to Tiberius Ceasar for Pilate’s failure to punish an insurrectionist. (See John 19:2)
Except for the brief interlude with Herod Antipas, Jesus had remained in Pilate’s custody from about 6:00 a. m. until Pilate finally bowed and yielded to the pressure. He handed Jesus over to his executioners at about 12 noon on Friday.
Pilate’s final delivery of Jesus to his executioners, coming at the end of six judicial inquiries, was followed by our Savior’s cruel, inhuman, tortuous death on Calvary.
Conclusion
Time does not permit a consideration of subsequent events—the entombing and all-important resurrection. So I conclude with these thoughts for your consideration about the six unlawful trials of Jesus.
Words like “prejudicial,” “unfair,” “undeserved,” “unjustified,” “illegal,” even the term “mock trial,” fall woefully short in describing the mere semblance of criminal proceedings to which Christ voluntarily allowed himself to be subjected. Nevertheless, we cannot logically wish it to have been otherwise, for we are the direct beneficiaries of his sufferings, even with regard to these false criminal proceedings. They form a meaningful part, perhaps a more essential part than we realize, of his great atoning sacrifice for each of us.
After witnessing his arrest, Matthew would later write: “[A]ll this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” (Matt. 26:56) But even beyond fulfilling prophesy, as important as that may have been, Jesus did infinitely more by perfectly fulfilling the will of his Father. Jesus obediently implemented his Father’s foundational plan of redemption. His Father, and our Heavenly Father, had sent his only begotten son to perform the atonement, “the just for the unjust,” (1 Pet. 3:18) which for us is arguably the most important event in all of our existence.
Each of us can rest assured that no injustice or suffering that ever befalls us will ever exceed the injustice or suffering that befell our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The criminal proceedings that resulted in his unlawful, unmerited, tortured death sentence join Gethsemane and the cruel cross as an integral part of his descending below all things, thereby providing for us through his amazing merciful grace the only opportunity that you and I have to be set free from the deserved suffering that justice dictates should otherwise be ours.
As we live out our lives, as we make the daily personal choices that will self-create the manner of man or woman we are now in the process of ultimately becoming, may our thoughts and actions be firmly anchored in the life, the teachings, and the example of our Savior, Jesus Christ. There is no other route or means to the full happiness and joy for which we longingly seek.
Such is my solemn and sacred witness to you this beautiful Easter morn, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.