The Legality of the Trial Brought Into Question

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). 

First Interrogatory Put to Jesus by Caiaphas 

“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.

 Second Interrogatory Put to Jesus by Caiaphas

 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.

 Third Interrogatory Put to Jesus by Caiaphas

 “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.

 Condemnation Pronounced by the Sanhedrim

 “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.