The Legality of the Trial Brought Into Question

Details of the Trial (Morning Session)

 Reason for Holding a Second Session

 “And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council against Jesus to put Him to death,” Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; Matthew 27:1.

Caiaphas and the other members of the Sanhedrim were exceedingly anxious lest the sentence resulting from the manifestly illegal proceedings of the night before should be annulled.  That their apprehensions were not without foundation is evident, if we bear in mind the number of revolting irregularities then committed.  What would be more natural than for the people, under the excitement of the occasion, to open upon them a volley of embarrassing questionings and protests?  What answer, for instance, could they give to the question of the necessity of holding a session of the council of the Sanhedrim at night, contrary to established custom?  What about the non-agreement of the witnesses, and the precipitate pronouncing of the sentence?  To avoid all these difficulties, the entire body of the Sanhedrim assembles early in the morning to hold a council against Jesus to put Him to death.

We here call attention to the fact that the present session of the Sanhedrim is by no means held for the purpose of revising the sentence pronounced on the previous night.  The condemnation of Jesus remains the same.  His doom is irrevocably sealed.  The only point that concerns that body now is the necessity for giving to the irregular proceedings just enacted an appearance of legality in the eyes of the people.  But in their efforts to that end we shall show that irregularities were committed quite as gross as those that marked the events of the preceding session.

“And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council,” Mark 15; Luke 22:66.

The assembling before the time of day prescribed by law constitutes the TWENTY-SECOND IRREGULARITY.  It was forbidden to convene the Sanhedrin before the celebration of the morning sacrifice.  “They shall sit from after the morning sacrifice until the sacrifice of the evening,” (Talmud, Jerus. Sanhedrim, C. 1., fol. 19).  But in assembling thus early (Respecting the hours for the offering of the daily sacrifice, the Bible says simply, “One lamb thou shalt offer in the morning, and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even,” Exodus 29:38-39.  But Josephus indicates the exact time for the offering of these sacrifices: “The law requires that at the public expense a lamb of the first year be killed every day, at the beginning and ending of the day,” (Jos. Ant., 3.10.1) they could not have waited for the consummation of the morning sacrifice, for the preparation for the morning sacrifice began at break of day, and one hour at least was required in the slaying and offering up of the victim, which was consumed amid the usual prayers.  We see, then, that the Sanhedrim must have convened just one hour in advance of the time prescribed by law.

Besides, it is now the great day of the Feast of the Passover, when to sit in judgment was strictly prohibited.  “They shall not judge on the Sabbath day, nor on a feast day,” (Mishnah, Betzah, C. 5.2).  The violation of this law forms the TWENTY-THIRD IRREGULARITY. Origen, one of the most eminent Bible commentators, commenting on the passage in Isaiah, “Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hateth,” Isaiah 1:14, says, “It was prophetically that God declared His hatred for the feasts of the synagogue, for in delivering Jesus to be executed on the very day of Passover, the Jews committed a great crime,” (Origen, Commentary on Isaiah). 

Renewal of the Cross-Examination of Jesus 

“And [they] led Him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? Tell us,” Luke 22:66-67.

We would call attention to the fact that the original method of conducting the trial is entirely abandoned. Efforts are no longer made for the securing or the producing of false witnesses; neither are the declarations made by Jesus Himself used against Him.  All these things had been tried without success on the previous evening, and the members of the Sanhedrim knew too well that a repetition of the selfsame order of procedure would be subject to the same difficulty that embarrassed their efforts before — the possibility of a protest on the part of the people.  To secure themselves against such a frustration of their designs, they resolved to do away with witnesses and interrogate Jesus as to His claims to divinity, knowing full well that His reply would be received as blasphemy by the people, who would thereupon yield a ready assent to His condemnation.

“Jesus said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask [i.e., question] you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right-hand of the power of God,” Luke 22:67-69.  This answer shows that Jesus understood clearly enough the sinister designs underlying this renewal of His cross-examination.  Nevertheless, He hesitated not in His reply.  Hearafter — that is, when you shall have exercised all the power given to you, and shall have put Me to death — I shall go to sit on the throne of the Almighty, at the right hand of God.  “Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God?” Luke 22:70.

The conclusion implied in the above question was logically correct, for the expression, “to sit at the right-hand of God” could not be applied to a human being; and His judges knew perfectly well that in speaking thus of Himself, He attributed to His own person the same honor, the same power, the same majesty, and consequently the same nature as of God Himself.

“And He [Jesus] said unto them, Ye say that I am,” Luke 22:70.

Jesus repeats in the same terms, and with the same solemnity, the declaration which He made during the night session.  Caiaphas had then asked Him, “Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?” His answer was, “I am.”  And now, when the same question is put to Him by the entire body of the Sanhedrim, His reply is still the same. 

Sentence Again Passed Upon Jesus by the Sanhedrim 

“And they said, What need we any further witness?  For we ourselves have heard of His own mouth,” Luke 22:71.  Thus the second general assembly confirms the sentence pronounced by the first.  The united voices of all the members pass sentence of death upon Jesus, and the judges, in their eagerness for the execution of the sentence, declare the proceedings at an end; and from their decision there is no appeal.  But the trial has not reached its conclusion, without a further increase to the list of irregularities we have been enumerating.

The TWENTY-FOURTH IRREGULARITY is found in the fact that, as on the previous evening, the sentence, contrary to law, was pronounced en masse.  The Mishnah says expressly, “Every one in his turn shall absolve or condemn,” (Sanhedrim, C. 5.5).

The answer of Jesus to the question, “Art thou the Son of God?” ought to have been minutely examined under the following heads:  1. Was the Messiah to have been the Son of God?  2.  Was Jesus the Son of God?  Their failure to scrutinize the question constitutes a TWENTY-FIFTH IRREGULARITY.

Again, the passing of the sentence should have been deferred to the next day.  Without invalidating the trial, the sentence could not have been passed before Saturday morning.  The proceedings began on Thursday night, which was really counted as Friday, for among the Hebrews the days were reckoned from one setting of the sun to another, Leviticus 23:32.  The first day of the trial, then, was from Thursday evening to Friday evening; but, as we have seen, an interval of one night was required between the trial itself and the pronouncing of the sentence.  (See Mishnah, Sanhedrim, C. 4.1.)  It is clear, then, that the sentence could not have been legally pronounced earlier than Saturday morning.  So, in the premature passing of the sentence we find a TWENTY-SIXTH IRREGULARITY.

Finally, the sentence against Jesus was invalid because it was pronounced in a place prohibited by the law — the house of Caiaphas, instead of the Hall of Hewn Stones, which was the only place where a criminal sentence could be legally passed.  “A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrim holds its sessions in the appointed place,” (Talmud, Bab., Abodah Zarah, or of Idolatry C. 1, fol. 8; Maimonides, Sanhedrim, C. 14).  This is the TWENTY-SEVENTH and last IRREGULARITY.

The authors of the Talmud so well understood the seriousness of the last irregularity that they have endeavored, in spite of historical assertions to the contrary, to prove that Jesus was both judged and condemned in the Hall of Hewn Stones.  Thus we read in the Thosephthoth, or Additions to the Talmud, Bab., Sanhedrim, C. iv. fol. 37, recto: “It is important to notice that every time the necessities of the case so required, the Sanhedrim returned to the Hall Gazith, or of Hewn Stones, as in the case of Jesus, and others.”

This, however, is a ridiculous statement, invented by some rabbi six centuries after the great event.  For the truth, as recorded by the evangelists, and confirmed by eyewitnesses, is that Jesus was brought, judged, and condemned in the house of Caiaphas.  In the terse language of St. John, “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment” [the praetorium of Pilate].

And now it is finished.  Jesus is condemned!  The priests, the scribes, and the elders, precipitately leaving their seats, bind the victim and hasten tumultuously to Pilate, clamoring for his ratification of their sentence, and his assent to its speedy execution, Luke 23:1; Mark 15:1; Matthew 27:2; John 18:28.

At this juncture, we might call attention to the part taken by the people at the instigation of the priests and scribes in this affair.  But we will reserve that subject for a future treatise.  Our object in the present work is to hold up to view the enormous outrages committed by the Sanhedrim itself, upon which body the responsibility of our Lord’s condemnation chiefly rests.  The house of Caiaphas was the vile den from whence proceeded the full depth of the cruelty and injustice that subsequently marked the proceedings at the praetorium, and found their culmination on the hill of Calvary.