The Legality of the Trial Brought Into Question

 The facts to which we refer are three decisions rendered by the Sanhedrim at three different sessions previous to the one which took place on the day of execution. Even before Jesus had been brought to public trial at all, the Sanhedrim had already assembled three times in secret for the purpose of discussing His miracles, acts, and doctrines.  At these sessions three different decisions had been rendered, which fact proves beyond a doubt that the death sentence of Christ was determined upon even before His public accusation. 

I

 The first session was held between the 28th and 30th of September (Tisri, 781 V.E.), 33 A.D.  The motive which prompted this measure is thus stated by John the Evangelist; “In the last day, that great day of the feast [of Tabernacles], (The Feast of Tabernacles commenced in that year on the 22nd of September.  The 28th was the last day.  Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink . . . . Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.  Others said, This is the Christ….So there was a division among the people because of Him.  And some of them would have taken Him; but no man laid hands on Him.  Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought Him?  The officers answered, Never man spake like this Man.  Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?  Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees, believed on Him?  But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.  Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came unto Jesus by night, being one of them), Doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he doeth?  They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee?” (John 7:37-53).

It was, then, in consequence of the excitement of the people, the testimony of the officers, and the interference of Nicodemus, that the Pharisees, made anxious by the progress which the belief in Christ was making, first convoked the Sanhedrim for the purpose of taking summary measures to check the influence of a man so dangerous to their doctrines and interests.  This fact is made still clearer by the same evangelist, who, after recording that officers were sent to seek Jesus, adds, apropos of the man who was born blind and was miraculously cured two days after the Feast of Tabernacles — that is to say, on the 30th of the same month — “These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews; for the Jews HAD AGREED ALREADY that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue,” John 9:22.

A decree of excommunication was, then, proclaimed about the 20th or the 30th of September, which circumstance proves two things:  1. That a solemn assembly of the Sanhedrim had taken place; for it alone had power to pronounce an excommunication major.  2.  That at this session the question was discussed as to whether Christ should be put to death.  The ancient synagogue established three different degrees of excommunication or anathema:

1. Separation (Niddui),

2. Execration (Cherim),

3. Death (Shammata), (See Eli the Levite in Thesbite, Shammata).

The first degree, or that of Separation, condemned the person upon whom it was pronounced to live isolated for thirty days.  He was, however, permitted to attend the services of the Temple, occupying a place especially reserved for him.  The power of issuing such a sentence did not belong exclusively to the Sanhedrim.  The priests appointed as judges in any city could exercise that right.

The second degree or that of Execration, subjected its victim to a complete separation from Jewish society.  He was shut out from the Temple, and given over to the evil one.  This anathema could be pronounced by the grand Sanhedrim at Jerusalem alone, (T. Goodvini, Moses et Aaron seu civiles et ecclesiastici Ritus antiq. Hebroeor., p. 403.  See also Seldenus, de Synedriis; Carpzov, Apparat. historic. crit., pp. 555-560; Vitringa, de Synag. Vetr., p. 730, etc.; Reland, Ant., p. 237) and it did not hesitate to issue a proclamation to that effect at the first session against whoever should dare acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.

The third degree, or that of Death, was the most formidable of the three.  This severe sentence was seldom inflicted upon a milder class of offenders than false prophets, upon whom it fell with terrible force, in many cases involving the death of both soul and body.  Its awful effect was heightened, too, by the fact of its being pronounced as with one voice by the entire assembly, amidst the most horrible maledictions.  And if, for some reason, the person under sentence escaped execution by stoning, his crime was not forgotten against him; for even after death the memory of it was perpetuated by a stone placed upon his grave, nor was any one allowed to follow his body to its last resting-place, or to wear the garb of mourning for him, (Otho, Lex rabbi, p. 21; Ugolini, Thesaur., 26).

From the knowledge we have of the disposition of the Sanhedrim, toward Jesus, we are inclined to the opinion that at the same session that pronounced the “execration” against the followers of Jesus there was also discussed the expediency of inflicting “shammata,” or the death sentence, on Jesus Himself.  In this supposition we are sustained by an old Jewish tradition, which, after stating the fact that Jesus was declared a magician and a seducer of the people, (Talmud, Bab., Sanhedrim; Vitringa, de Synag. Vetr., p. 781) adds that He was condemned to “shammata”  to the sound of 400 trumpets.   Without giving full credence to an account so exaggerated, we still have reason to believe that the expediency of putting Jesus to death was seriously discussed by the Sanhedrim.  The postponement of the verdict was due only to their fear of the people, who manifested great enthusiasm in favor of Christ on account of the miracles which He had preformed and His sublime discourses.  Whatever may have been their intentions toward Jesus in excommunicating His followers, they indirectly declared Jesus a false prophet, and hence worthy of the severest penalty that the law could inflict.  Meantime, Jesus had never once appeared before that body, nor had He been interrogated in regard to His doctrines or His miracles.  Is not this a proof, as Nicodemus has implied, that they had already condemned Him without having granted Him a hearing (John 8:59) or listened to a word in His defense? 

II

 The second session of the Sanhedrim took place in the month of February (Adar, 782 V.E.), 34 A.D., about four months and a half after the first session.  The famous resurrection of Lazarus was the occasion that called the Sanhedrim into council at this time.

“But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and Pharisees a COUNCIL, and said, What do we? for this Man doeth many miracles.  If we let Him thus alone, all men will believe on Him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.  And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not… Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put Him to death… Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where He were, he should shew it, that they might take Him,” John 11:46-57.

We see, then, that at this second council the death of Christ is decided upon.  In the September session His death was proposed only indirectly, but this time the sentence is passed, the high priest having himself declared that it was better for one man to die!  This sentence was pronounced without summoning the accused into council, without witnesses, and without making any investigation of His doctrines or His miracles.  Neither was it pronounced because Jesus was found to be seditious or revolutionary, but because it was necessary to put a stop to His miracles, and thus destroy the people’s belief in Him.  The sentence having been pro­nounced by the high priest, it was ratified by the whole assembly: “Then from that day forth they took counsel together to put Him to death.”  Henceforward the expediency of putting Christ to death will be discussed no more.   It is a settled question.  There remains to be determined only the time and the manner of executing the sentence.  Meanwhile, the order of the high priest is given: “If any man know where Jesus is, they shall show it, that they might take him.”  Have we not here ample evidence that the condemnation of Jesus preceded His arrest and trial? 

III

 The third session was held about twenty or twenty-five days after the second — about the 12th of March (Nisan, 782), two days before the Passover.

“Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.  And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill Him; for they feared the people. . . . Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him.  But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people,” Luke 22:1-2; Matthew 26:3-5.

We notice that at this gathering the question of the sentence of Christ is no longer debated.  His death had already been determined upon at the second session.  The only things that now remain to be settled are the manner of His death and the proper time for its execution.  After a long discussion, it is decided to delay the arrest to an indefinite day after the Feast of Passover.  This precaution was taken to prevent interference on the part of the people.  Having determined on this course, they are about to adjourn, when an unforeseen event causes them to reconsider their resolution.

“Then entered Satan into Judas, surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.  And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him unto them.  And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money,” Luke 22:3-5; Mark 14:10, 11.  Like another Ahithophel, Judas is received with as great joy by the Sanhedrim as was Ahithophel, the betrayer of David, by the rebel council convened by Absalom, II Samuel 16, 17.  The prophets to whom a revelation of Christ and His life had been divinely given, saw in a vision this third council of the Sanhedrim.  They saw these men at first embarrassed by the difficulty of deciding upon the day for the execution of Christ; they saw also Judas appearing in their midst.  “Mine enemies have spoken evil of Me:  When will He die, and when will His name be exterminated?  Those who have hated Me have taken secret counsel against Me; they have conspired to do Me evil.  A fatal sentence had been passed upon Him.  He is stricken down, and shall rise no more, even the man of My peace.  He in whom I confided, and has eaten My bread, has raised his heel against Me,” (Literal translation from the Hebrew of part of Psalm 41).

That infamous betrayal had the effect of bringing about a decision.  The seizure of Jesus was no longer postponed, but measures were taken to capture Him at the earliest practicable moment.  They promised Judas thirty pieces of silver, in consideration of which he engaged himself to take the first opportunity to deliver Jesus into their hands without exciting the people.  With Judas, with his well-known cupidity and cunning, as their secret agent, they were confident that a favorable occasion would soon present itself.  Meanwhile, the doom of Jesus was sealed, and through the treachery of Judas, He was to be sacrificed on that solemn day of Passover week on which for fifteen centuries had been slain the paschal lamb, the type and prophecy of which He was the fulfillment.

And now let us sum up the decisions of the three councils.

Bearing in mind the fact that Jesus would not make His first appearance before the Sanhedrim until the Thursday evening of the second week of Nisan (March), 782, we notice that three different sessions had already been held by that body, in which three adverse judgments were passed upon Him.

The first council, in excommunicating the partisans of Christ, denounced Him as a false prophet, and consequently guilty of death.

In the second council the question whether He should die or not was proposed, and unanimously decided in the affirmative.

In the third council His arrest and execution were appointed to take place at the first favorable opportunity.

We now ask of every sincere Israelite if the trial of Christ was not a fearful mockery and a lie.