Carey's Bible Study Notes
home |
life of christ |
jewish trial
life of christ: John 18.12-27; Mark 14.55-15.1; Luke 22.66-23.1
the jewish trial
introduction
When you come to the Jewish trial, you see a variety of details scattered throughout the four Gospels. Some use this fact as an argument that the Gospels are full of errors concerning this aspect of Jesus� life. Simply because the 4 Gospel accounts don�t duplicate each other doesn�t mean they are full of errors. What this variety shows though is that the Gospel writers had different perspectives about the trial. For example, if you took 4 eye-witnesses to the trial of O.J. Simpson, you would get 4 different accounts. Whereas there would be some common elements to all 4 accounts, e.g., all would inform us that he was found not guilty, each account would focus on different characters. For example, one account may focus on Marcia Clark and another on Johnny Cochran. Some of the common elements in all 4 Gospels include the element that the Jewish Sanhedrin and its representatives tried Jesus on Thursday night of Passover. Also, all 4 accounts include the story of Peter betraying Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed. We shall cull from all 4 accounts in order to get the fullest picture of Jesus on trial before the Jewish religious leaders.
the police interrogation before annas and peter's denials (John 18.12-27)
John informs us that after the Roman cohort and Jewish Temple police arrested Jesus, they led Him away to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas. Why Annas first and not Caiaphas? Because Annas was the real power operating among the Jews. Annas had been high priest from 6 AD to 15 AD. Jewish law dictated that the high priest maintain that post for life; however, in order to prevent power from concentrating in the hands of one person, the Romans rotated the high priesthood even though the high priest was still living. During Jesus� life, not only was Caiaphas the current high priest alive, previous high priests were still living, including Annas. For this reason many times in the Gospels, you see the phrase "the high priests" instead of just "the high priest." Although Annas was not technically the high priest at this time, he was still the power behind the throne. This is supported by the fact that he was able to have all five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas installed as high priest after him. He is the godfather manipulating the strings with his sons and son-in-law the puppets..
Right before John describes this part of the trial proceedings, he mentions that he along with Peter followed Jesus up to Annas� house. Since John was at least an acquaintance of the high priest, he entered with Jesus and the police force into the courtyard of the high priest. Some think that this is strange because John was nothing more than a fisherman while Annas was part of the Jerusalem aristocracy. Remember though that John�s father Zebedee was apparently a prosperous fisherman because he was able to hire men to help him in his business. Even though they might have been nouveau riche, they were nevertheless still rich and as such had influence and connections. Moreover, if you think this scenario seems improbable, try the opposite�Peter by himself without any introduction being able to walk right into the courtyard of the high priest. It would be like me sneaking into the White House. No way.
Because of his influence, John was able to get Peter admitted into Annas� courtyard. Upon entering the courtyard, the girl who was in charge of opening and closing the gate asked Peter if he was one of Jesus� disciples. This was an appropriate question since he was undoubtedly not one of the police force and also not one of the high priest�s servants. Peter replies that he is not one of Jesus� disciples.
John next shifts the scene to Jesus being interrogated by Annas. Annas wants information from Jesus regarding 2 subjects, His teaching and His followers. Annas is hoping to find evidence which would incriminate Him before both the Jews and the Romans. With regards to the Jews, he wants to find something which will make Him look like He has blasphemed God; on the other hand, he wants to find something which will make Him look like a threat to the Roman empire. He is not interested in discovering whether or not Jesus is innocent. In Annas� eyes, Jesus is a dead man. He just needs to find a way to find some incriminating evidence which will stick against Jesus. This part of the trial functions as a sort of police interrogation in which the police try to amass as much information as possible to be presented at the trial.
Jesus though refuses to provide information. According to the OT Law a person was not required to provide incriminating testimony against Himself. A person was supposed to respond to charges leveled against him; however, he was not to provide the evidence. On this basis, Jesus refuses to provide information. He reminds them that He spoke publicly in the synagogues and in the Temple where the Jews assembled en masse. They needed to provide their own witnesses. He is not going to let them get off that easy. He is going to expose them for who they truly are, murderers hiding behind the Law. He is in effect demanding a fair trial.
One of the officers standing by slaps Jesus in the face with his open hand. Jesus turns to the officer and demands to know why he had slapped Him. If Jesus had spoken wrongly, then the officer was required to explain how; if Jesus spoke rightly (which He did), then the slap was totally unjustified. Jesus is exposing them for their brutish behavior. By responding this way, He is demanding once more a fair trial. Annas, exasperated at Jesus� lack of cooperation, gives up and sends Him off to Caiaphas (18.24).
At this point John returns to Peter who is standing in the courtyard below warming himself. John inserts Jesus� trial before Annas in the middle of Peter�s 3 denials in order to contrast Jesus� response to His accusers with Peter�s response to his accusers. While Jesus is standing trial before Annas, Peter is standing trial before the household of Annas and Caiaphas. Whereas Jesus stands firm, Peter caves instantly.
While Peter is warming himself, one of the bystanders quizzes Peter as to whether or not he is with Jesus the Galilean. The bystanders are quite sure Peter is one of Jesus� followers because Peter�s speech reveals him to be a Galilean, just like Jesus. (Just like you can identify a person from Boston because of his dialect, so the Jews living in Jerusalem could identify the Galilean Jews because of their dialects. The Galileans slacked off in articulating the guttural sounds so prevalent in Semitic languages.) Peter once more denies his association with Jesus.
One of the relatives of Malchus, the high priest�s slave whose Peter had cut off, asks Peter if he did not see him earlier in the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus. Peter explodes and even calls down heaven�s curses against them for believing such an accusation and against him if he is truly Jesus� disciple. At this point the NT does not quote Peter; however, it gives us a good idea of what Peter might have said: "May God blast me into hell if I ever knew the man" and "Because these accusations are untrue, may God blast you into hell if you keep making them." (These are mild interpretations of Peter�s curses). At this point, the rooster crows. Peter remembers Jesus� prediction that he would deny Him 3 times before the rooster crowed. Peter looks upstairs where Jesus is on trial. To Peter�s horror he discovers that Jesus has been watching him. Peter breaks down and weeps bitterly as he rushes out of the courtyard.
Is this story true? No doubt it is because the early church would have never cast one of its greatest heroes in such a negative light if it were not true. What�s even more is that this event rocked the band of early disciples. First one of the 12 betrays Jesus; now the head disciple denies Him. What next? It was such an important event that it is one of the few events which all four Gospels record. This episode demonstrated Peter�s need to be in prayer before Jesus was arrested. Moreover, it demonstrates the depth of Jesus� love and forgiveness because within a few days, Jesus will restore this faithless disciples to Himself.
the grand jury investigation (Mark 14.55-59; 15.1)
From Annas, Jesus is led to Caiaphas who is technically the high priest at this time. This part of the proceedings served as a grand jury investigation in which the evidence is presented to determine whether or not a formal trial before the Romans is warranted. Many NT scholars see several elements operating in this trial which according to Jewish law would have been illegal. First, if this evening was Passover night, then the trial was illegal because it was being conducted during one of the three major feasts�Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. A further illegality consisted in the trial being conducted at night. Furthermore, the verdict could not be rendered until 24 hours had elapsed between the trial itself and the verdict given. This was to allow cooler heads to prevail. While many NT scholars question whether or not this trial actually took place because of all the illegalities running rampant, we need to remember that at this point, the Jewish religious leaders were not really interested in following the Law. They just wanted Jesus dead and wanted to conduct some semblance of a trial in order to make it look like they had been just in their treatment of Jesus. The fact that these "impartial" judges were scrounging around for any and all incriminating evidence to convict Jesus shows that they are not interested in discovering the truth about Jesus. They are interested only in destroying Him.
Just who is present at this proceeding besides Jesus? The Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme court. The Sanhedrin was composed of 70 leading men in Israel. Some of the 70 came from the high priestly family which would have included Annas, Caiaphas, and Annas� five sons. The elders comprised another element of this court. The elders were lay leaders in the Jewish communities�"mayors" and other civic leaders. Finally, the scribes which came from the sect of the Pharisees made up the third part of this Jewish supreme court. Now the whole supreme court did not have to meet in order to conduct the trial. In fact it is most likely that neither Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus was present since their sympathies lay with Jesus. All Caiaphas needed was a quorum of 25. He would have made sure that the 25 would be willing to convict Jesus.
The only element in the trial which seemed to harmonize with the Law was the insistence of the Jewish religious leaders to find at least 2 witnesses whose damaging testimony would agree. According to the Law of Moses, a person could not face capital punishment unless 2 or 3 witnesses provided testimony which agreed in every detail. Since the trial was a rush job, the Jewish leaders were having problems finding such testimony. Finally, they happened upon 2 men who testified that Jesus had claimed earlier that He was going to destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days. If Jesus had made such a claim, He would have been guilty of a capital offense because the destruction of sacred places was listed as a capital offense in the Roman empire. Actually, what Jesus had said was that they were going to destroy the Temple of His body and that He would raise up that Temple on the third day, a reference to His death and resurrection (see John 2.19). Once more the Jewish religious leaders are foiled because the 2 witnesses do not agree in detail.
Finally, the high priest is totally exasperated with all these proceedings. Jesus has refused to provide any evidence and none of the evidence the Jewish leaders have scrounged up has amounted to anything. In desperation he turns to Jesus and asks Him if He wants to respond to all the accusations leveled against Him. Jesus refuses though to answer. This is not a legitimate trial. It is a murderous lynch mob which is acting under the guise of justice. Moreover, He refuses to dignify these accusations. They have nothing to do with the reason the religious leaders have brought Jesus to trial. He wants them to deal with the real issue they hate Him, His claims to be God the Son.
Finally, the high priest gets down to brass tacks. He asks Jesus point-blank: "Are You the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Blessed One, the Son of God?" This is the point Jesus has wanted to push them to. He wanted to be tried and accepted or rejected on this issue alone. Jesus without qualification declares that He is. Then Jesus turns the tables on them. He claims that He is not the one on trial today. They are, and their response to Him will determine their own verdict. If they accept Him, He will accept them. If they reject Him, He will reject them. This is no idle threat because a day will soon come when He the Messiah (Son of Man) will return from heaven on clouds of glory, sitting at the right hand of God, in order to save His people and condemn His enemies.
The high priest has what he wants. He acts horrified at what Jesus has just claimed. He tears his robes in mock horror and cries out, "Blasphemy! What further need have we of testimony. By His own lips, He has condemned Himself!" Instead of checking out the claims Jesus has just made for Himself, he decides that Jesus has provided the necessary evidence to destroy Him.
To understand this next scene, you need to remember who is present at these proceedings. The Sanhedrin was composed of the cream of Jewish society, wealthy aristocrats, brilliant scholars, and prominent civic leaders. You would not find better people in all Israel than these 70 men. Now look at what they do. At this point the Jewish religious leaders vent all their pent-up rage against Jesus. They blindfold Him and begin to slap Him with their open palms and punch Him with their fists in the face. The fact that Jesus does not respond only emboldens them further. In their opinion if He had been the Messiah, He would have put an immediate end to these proceedings. The fact that they got away with it only demonstrated to them that He was a fraud. Blindfolding Him and asking Him who slapped Him was meant to be a test as to whether or not He is the Messiah. If He had been the Messiah, He would have been able to detect who slapped Him even when blindfolded. For three long years they had put up with His arrogance and insolence. A peasant Galilean declaring Himself to be God the Son and demanding they submit to Him was more than they could bear. Moreover, Jesus had stolen the affections of the people away from them. This was pay-back time.
They hated Him because He had exposed them for the frauds they really were. They were not men of God; otherwise, they would have received Him with open arms when He arrived. Instead, many of them were interested only in power or in fame. Jesus� ministry threatened their hold upon the people and therefore their positions. The ironic thing is that they thought by destroying Jesus they would be able to hold onto their power and positions, whereas just the exact opposite was the truth. Because of their treatment of Jesus, within 40 years the Romans will destroy not only the nation but also the Sanhedrin.
Their response is typical of all who refuse to come to God. As long as we speak about God in some general way, everybody feels comfortable with Him. We don�t feel threatened at all with such a God. Once though you start saying that the only way to be rightly related with God though is to accept His Son as Savior and Lord, you then encounter real opposition, not just from what people would call the scum of society but from the religious as well, religious in the sense of being only pious and not spiritual. Folding your hands in prayer a certain way or giving so much money to the church does not make you acceptable to God. What makes you acceptable is that you be rightly related to Him by having a right relationship based on obedience to His Son Jesus. You can�t have the Father without the Son.
Since it was illegal for the Jews to conduct a trial at night, the Jews wait until morning in order to formulate an official charge against Jesus. They most likely felt that by delaying they could justify their nightly proceedings. At the first crack of dawn, the smaller group of the Sanhedrin is joined by other members of the body. In complete unison they indict Him with the charge of blasphemy . With this sentence they have sealed their own doom. It is now just a matter of time before Jesus� prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, their base operations, is fulfilled. Now all that is left is convincing Pilate that Jesus has committed a crime worthy of death.