Events Leading to Jesus’ Death

Next Part An Innocent Man—Condemned!

Back to The True Jesus Christ Unknown to Christianity

Before identifying the precise reasons Jesus’ trial was illegal, it will be helpful to briefly examine events leading up to His crucifixion.

We begin again with Judas Iscariot striking a deal with the religious authorities. Here is the account: “Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve [disciples]. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him [Jesus] unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray Him unto them in the absence of the multitude” (Luke 22:3-6).

Soon after Judas entered into a pact with the religious leaders, Jesus and His faithful disciples ate their final meal together on Passover evening. Then, Judas arrived at the Mount of Olives with a large mob of various people, including Jesus’ future judges and jury, who stirred up the crowd to arrest Christ (Luke 22:8-39).

After the arrest, a former high priest named Annas examined Jesus first (John 18:13). Next, the mob brought Jesus to the high priest’s palace, where Caiaphas (the high priest) and the Sanhedrin were gathered (Matt. 26:57-58). Here, numerous false witnesses came before the Sanhedrin to give testimony against Him. Eventually, Jesus was condemned to death, apparently on the charge of blasphemy (Mt 26:65-66). The next morning, the Sanhedrin formally condemned Jesus in an attempt to make the previous evening’s procedures legal. A multitude of people then led Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:1) and pronounced different charges, saying, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King” (Lk 23:2). Notice that they did not accuse Christ of blasphemy in the presence of Pilate. Instead, they charged Him with treason against the Roman Empire.

Pilate initially desired to free Jesus (Lk 23:4), but the people continued to push for His death, saying, “He stirs up [incites] the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place” (Lk 23:5).

Recall when Pilate heard that Jesus was from Galilee, he sent Him to Herod, since Galilee was under his jurisdiction (Lk 23:6-7). Herod was happy to see Jesus, as he heard many things about Him. He desired to see Jesus perform some miracles (Lk 23:8). But Jesus neither performed any miracles nor answered his questions (Lk 23:9). Meanwhile, the chief priests and scribes stood by and accused Jesus (Lk 23:10). After being mocked, He was quickly sent back to Pilate (Lk 23:11).

Pilate sought to release Jesus once again, as he found no reason to condemn Him to death: “You have brought this Man unto me, as one that perverts the people: and, behold, I, having examined Him before you, have found no fault in this Man touching those things whereof you accuse Him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto Him. I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him” (Lk 23:14-16). But the crowd cried out with a loud voice, “Crucify Him, crucify Him” (Lk 23:21).

Pilate, a third time, responded to the multitude, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no cause of death in Him: I will therefore chastise Him, and let Him go” (Lk 23:22).

The people responded all the more loudly: “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”

Pilate finally gave in to the people’s demands, and delivered Jesus to be crucified.

Keep in mind again that this entire process lasted only about nine hours, from after midnight to around 9:00 in the morning. Jesus was seized, then tried, condemned and crucified—all within a matter of nine hours! At 3:00 in the afternoon, Jesus was speared in His side and killed (John 19:34). In that short period of time, the world eliminated the Saviour!

With this backdrop, we are now ready to examine 12 paramount—and clear—reasons the arrest, trial and conviction of Jesus Christ were illegal.

Recall that Judas was bribed to betray Jesus in the absence of the crowds who favoured Him. The plan was to seize Jesus in the dark of night, sentence Him just before sunrise—to make everything appear legal—transport Him to Pilate, stir up a mob of people to condemn Him, and crucify Him in the morning before those who supported Him were aware.

Who constituted the crowd of people who arrested Jesus? The answer leads to the first manoeuvre contrary to law in Jesus’ arrest, trial and conviction: Jesus was arrested illegally.

Any trial may be dismissed as a mistrial, or illegal, if there is prejudice against the individual being tried on the part of those participating. The accused must be given full recourse of law to be able to sufficiently present his side.

Jesus, however, was both arrested and tried by those prejudiced against Him, and was not allowed opportunity to present His case. Further, His judges were the same individuals who bribed Judas! Surely one cannot say these people were impartial!

In addition, Jesus was arrested secretly at night and was not formally charged of any offense. Judas simply pointed out Jesus, and a crowd arrested Him. There was no legal basis for this.

In his book Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, Samuel Mendelssohn states, “The testimony of an accomplice [in this case, Judas] is not permissible by Rabbinic law…and no man’s life, nor his liberty, nor his reputation can be endangered by the malice of the one who has confessed himself a criminal.”

Since Judas accepted a bribe from a judge, certainly Judas would be considered a criminal. And since Jesus’ judges bribed Judas, they would be considered criminals as well. This alone should have led to a mistrial!

Second Reason

Jesus was examined by Annas in a secret night proceeding (John 18:12-14, 19-23). According to the Talmud, the Sanhedrin is forbidden from convening between the time of the evening and morning sacrifice. In the book Jesus Before the Sanhedrin, M.M. Lemann states that “no session [including a preliminary examination] of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice.”

Going further, “An accused man was never subjected to private or secret examination,” as stated in Institutions de Moise, by J. Salvador.

Third Reason

The indictment against Jesus was false.

In the book Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim states that “the Sanhedrin did not, and could not, originate charges.” But as we saw, the Sanhedrin did so in the case against Jesus.

Alexander Taylor Innes, in The Trial of Jesus Christ, reveals that “until they [the witnesses] spoke, and spoke in the public assembly, the prisoner was scarcely [never] an accused man. When they spoke, and the evidence of two agreed together, it formed a legal charge, libel or indictment, as well as the evidence for its truth.”

In a correctly conducted procedure, the evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the charge. But with Jesus, no witnesses—and therefore no charges—were presented at the outset of the proceedings. Those in opposition to Jesus, including those who would be in the court, simply arrested Him. They then needed to find witnesses—false ones!

Fourth Reason

The Sanhedrin court illegally held its trial before sunrise.

Annas’s preliminary examination of Jesus resulted in no evidence. But instead of dismissing the case, the Sanhedrin proceeded to hold an illegal court.

Mendelsohn reveals why it was illegal: “Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during the day time only, and by the Lesser Sanhedrins from the close of the morning sacrifice till noon, and by the Great Sanhedrin till evening.”

The Jewish Mishna states, “Let a capital offense be tried during the day, but suspend at night.”

Moses Maimonides explains why trials are to be held during the daylight: “The reason why the trial of a capital offense could not be held at night is because…the examination of such a charge is like the diagnosing of a wound—in either case a more thorough and searching examination can be made by daylight.”

Convicting someone of a crime punishable by death was serious business. It required those deciding the fate of the accused to be at their best mental state, which is hardly true in the early hours of the morning.

Fifth Reason

The Sanhedrin illegally convened to try a capital offense on a day before an annual Sabbath.

The Mishna reveals why: “They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath, nor on any festival.”

In Martyrdom of Jesus, Isaac Wise, a Jewish Rabbi, provides decisive evidence: “No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessions on the Sabbath or on any of the seven biblical Holy Days. In cases of capital crime, no trial could be commenced on Friday or the day previous to any Holy Day, because it was not lawful either to adjourn such cases longer than overnight, or to continue them on the Sabbath or Holy Day.”

Jesus, however, was arrested on Passover evening in A.D. 31, which is the day before the First Day of Unleavened Bread—an annual Holy Day!

Sixth Reason

The trial concluded in one day.

Again, reading from the Mishna, we learn, “A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day.”

Forcing a trial to continue longer than one day allows time for witnesses in support of the accused to come forth. Of course, Jesus’ court did not want any such witnesses to manifest themselves, so they ended it quickly.

Seventh Reason

In addition to the indictment against Jesus being false, it was used illegally.

Jesus was indicted on the basis of one statement with no supporting evidence. Here is what transpired:

Two false witnesses testified that Jesus said, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands” (Mark 14:58). This was used as the indictment against Jesus. However, it was false. Jesus never said this! Rather, He stated, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19).

Notice Jesus did not say, “I will destroy this temple…” He said, “Destroy this temple…” Second, He did not say “…that is made with hands…” or “…build another made without hands.” These subtle differences completely change the meaning of His statement—and the false witnesses knew this. They portrayed Jesus as planning to destroy the physical Temple in Jerusalem. But this was far from the meaning of His words—referring to His death and resurrection!

Jesus’ statement in John 2:19 was a response to those who asked Him to give a sign (Jn 2:18). He was not referring to the physical Temple being destroyed; rather, He was talking about His Body—that three days after He would be put to death He would rise from the grave. By cunningly rephrasing His statement, the false witnesses were able to bring an indictment against Jesus.

Next, the high priest arose, and said to Jesus, “Are You not going to answer? Do You have anything to say about these charges?” Jesus said nothing.

Then the high priest exclaimed, “I command You in the name of the living God: Tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus answered, “You have said correctly. Nevertheless, you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

Immediately, the high priest tore his clothes, and shouted, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need have we of witnesses? You are witnesses to His blasphemy. What do all of you think?”

“He is deserving of death!” everyone shouted in unison (Matt. 26:62-66).

Notice that the high priest’s question was completely unrelated to the indictment brought by the false witnesses. Instead of condemning Jesus on the charge of supposedly threatening to destroy the Temple and rebuild it three days later, the court condemned Him on a separate charge—that He claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus was indicted on one charge, tried on a separate charge, and condemned on His own testimony.

Jewish scholar Maimonides has this to say: “We have it as fundamental principle of our jurisprudence, that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses” (Sanhedrin, IV, 2).

Yet, Jesus was condemned on account of His personal testimony, which was supposedly blasphemous. Furthermore, the court failed to examine Him to see whether His reference to being the Son of God could be considered blasphemy!

Max Radin reveals why Jesus’ testimony was not blasphemous: “The blasphemy which the Pentateuch [first five books of the Old Testament] mentions is a literal cursing of God or a direct defiance of him. The only pentateuchal reference makes this clear. It is in Leviticus, chapter 24, and the incident which gave rise to the statute indicates the character of the offense of blasphemy in Jewish law. The half-Egyptian had cursed God…as under the circumstances of the quarrel there described, he would have been likely enough to do. No such thing could have been charged against Jesus by his most inveterate enemies” (The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth).

Notice another violation of law: “No attempt is ever made to lead a man on to self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confession on his [the defendant’s] part is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competent to convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely corroborate his self-accusation” (Mendelssohn, Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews).

Yet again, in Jesus’ case, the court violated its own law! The Sanhedrin illegally used Jesus’ own assertion that He is the Son of God as evidence against Him.

Eighth Reason

The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the merits of the defence were not considered.

Immediately after hearing Jesus declare that He was the Son of God, the high priest shouted, “He has spoken blasphemy.” That was it—there was no diligent inquiry to follow. This despite what is stated in the Mishna: “The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience.”

It should be apparent that this did not occur in the case of Jesus. The high priest and all present immediately formed an opinion. There was no further investigation to see if He did in fact blaspheme.

In addition, the high priest tore his clothes during the trial (Mark 14:63; Matt. 26:65). But in Leviticus 21:10, we find that he is forbidden to do so: “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.” (Also read Leviticus 10:6.)

The high priest tore his clothes to incite fury and prejudice in those present. He should have remained calm to avoid hampering the ability of others to render a sound judgment.

Put simply: A mob spirit condemned Jesus! (See Exodus 23:2.)

Here is what Mendelssohn states concerning this type of procedure: “A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal.”

The Mishna indicates that the proper method of voting was for “the judges each in his turn to absolve or condemn.”

“The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a semicircle at the extremity of which 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 against him.”

But there is other important explanation of process. In Criminal Code of the Jews, Philip Benny wrote, “In ordinary cases the judges voted according to seniority, the oldest commencing; in a capital case, the reverse order was followed. That the younger members of the Sanhedrin should not be influenced by the views or the arguments of their more mature, more experienced colleagues, the junior judge was in these cases always the first to pronounce for or against conviction.”

Clearly, none of this occurred in Jesus’ trial.

Ninth Reason

Jesus being condemned by only part of the Sanhedrin was illegal because those who would have voted against the guilty verdict were not present. We know that at least one member of the Sanhedrin during Jesus’ trial was not present: Joseph of Arimathaea. In Luke 23:1-56, we learn the following: “And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just: (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews…” (Lk 23:50-51).

Most Greek scholars agree that the word counsellor refers to a member of the Sanhedrin. Interestingly, however, Joseph was not present during Jesus’ trial. All who were there unanimously condemned Him, but Luke indicates Joseph “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them.” This means he was absent from the proceedings—which was illegal! In setting up a secret night meeting to try Jesus, those who wanted to put Him to death ensured that His supporters would not be present to sidetrack their wicked intentions.

Also consider that “if none of the judges defend the culprit, i.e., all pronounce him guilty, having not defender in the court, the verdict guilty was invalid and sentence of death could not be executed” (Martyrdom of Jesus).

Tenth Reason

Jesus’ sentence was illegally pronounced in a place forbidden by law. After being seized by a mob, Jesus was eventually brought to the high priest’s house to be tried (Luke 22:54). Yet Jewish law expressly forbids an individual from being tried anywhere but in the court. Notice what the Talmud states: “After leaving the hall Gazith [the court] no sentence of death can be passed upon anyone so ever.”

Maimonides adds, “A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place” (Sanhedrin, XIV).

Eleventh Reason

Most members of the Sanhedrin were disqualified from legally trying Jesus.

Consider what Mendelssohn wrote in Hebrew Maxims and Rules: “The robe of the unfairly elected judge is to be respected not more than the blanket of the [donkey].”

In the Bible and the works of Jewish historian Josephus, we find the names of many of those who served on the Sanhedrin during Jesus’ time. According to Josephus, these men—Caiaphas, Mathias, Ishmael, Simon, John, Alexander, Ananias, among others—received bribes, bought their offices and were appointed by those who should not have been on the court themselves. These things alone disqualified them!

Also, there were 12 former high priests serving on the Sanhedrin. The Bible, however, clearly requires that a man serve in this office throughout his entire lifetime. Only death would end his term. Contrary to the biblical pattern, Roman law permitted high priests to be voted into office each year. Another reason the judges were disqualified is due to their status as enemies of the accused: “Nor must there be on the judicial bench either a relation, or a particular friend, or an enemy of either the accused or the accuser” (Hebrew Maxims and Rules).

This is corroborated by Philip Benny: “Nor under any circumstances was a man to be at enmity with the accused person permitted to occupy a position among his judges” (Criminal Code of the Jews).

Yet those on the court were BITTER ENEMIES of Jesus—and even bribed someone to betray Him!

Twelfth Reason

The initial charge of blasphemy was illegally switched to sedition.

Earlier, we saw that, though they had legal authority to execute Him, the Sanhedrin decided to bring Jesus before Pontius Pilate on the charge of sedition. Initially, Jesus’ opponents accused Him of blasphemy. But since they were afraid of their fellow Jews and did not want to execute Him themselves, they needed to switch the charge to treason against the Roman government, as we saw in Luke 23:1-56 “And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King” (Lk 23:2).

If the Sanhedrin had come to Pilate with the charge of blasphemy against Jesus, the governor would have told them to deal with Him according to their law. The case would have been dismissed. But since the Sanhedrin changed the charge to treason against the Roman government, Pilate was forced to listen to the case.

In the end, after several attempts to let Jesus go, and being threatened with possibly losing his position (John 19:12), Pilate reluctantly gave in to the mob’s demands. Interestingly, however, he did not render a formal decision. Notice Pilate’s final words in the trial: “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person: see you to it” (Matt. 27:24).

No judgment against Jesus was rendered. Pilate ended the trial by turning Jesus over to His soldiers to carry out the true motive of the Jewish leaders—to have Jesus put to death on account of supposed blasphemy, not sedition (John 19:7).