Jesus was tried and convicted illegally

JESUS WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED ILLEGALLY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
12 Reasons Jesus’TrialWas IllegalBY Herman L Hoeh
Part 1
Have you consideredthat, even by man’s laws, Jesus’trial was illegal? Here
are 12 reasons!
It is just after midnight on the PassoverofA.D. 31. An ominous gathering of
people, wielding swords and clubs, has assembledin the midst of Jesus and
His disciples on the Mount of Olives, their intent mostly unknown. A man
named Judas steps forward from the multitude and greets Jesus with a kiss,
saying, “Goodevening, Master.”
Jesus responds, “Myfriend. Why are you here tonight?”
Immediately, severalmembers of the large crowdmove forward and seize
Jesus, prompting one of His disciples to grab a sword and strike one of the
attackers.
“Put down your sword,” Jesus exclaims. “Itis of no value. Those who rely on
swords will die with their swords in hand. They are of no use. If I wanted to, I
could call upon My Fatherto send more than 70,000angels to free Me. But if
this were to happen, the Scriptures would not be fulfilled.”
Then Jesus says to the crowd, “Why have you seized Me tonight with swords
and clubs, as if I were a criminal? Did you not see Me many times teaching in
the temple? Why did you not lay hands upon Me then?”
At that very moment, Jesus’disciples—His closefriends, who have been with
Him for the better part of three and a half years—flee. Everylast one of them

forsook Him, as it is written, “I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheepof the
flock shall be scatteredabroad” (Matt. 26:31).
Jesus is eventually takento the palace of the high priest, whose name is
Caiaphas. There, a sizeable group of scribes and Pharisees is anxiously
assembled. Foryears, Jesus’popularity among the common people of Judea
has threatenedtheir positions of authority. Now, they finally have a chance to
try Jesus and convictHim of a crime, one punishable by death.
You are probably at leastsomewhatfamiliar with the rest of story: Jesus is
tried, convictedand put to death—crucifiedon a stake. Buthave you ever
closelyexamined the court proceedings leading to Jesus’crucifixion? Have
you consideredthat, even by man’s laws, Jesus’trial was illegal?
Commonly Held Views of the Trial
Many believe and try to prove that Jesus was legallyput to death. For
example, in his 1916 book The Prosecutionof Jesus, RichardWellington
Husband, a lawyer, wrote, “The arrest was legal…The hearing by the
Sanhedrin was legal…The courseoftrial in the Roman court was legal…The
conviction was legal, and was justified.”
Here is how Husband supports his assertions:“The arrestwas legal, for it was
conducted by the proper officers, acting under instruction from the
Sanhedrin. There was no illegality in the circumstances under which the
arrestwas affected. The hearing by the Sanhedrin was legal, for it was merely
a preliminary hearing, and was not a formal trial. The course of trial in the
Roman court was legal, for it harmonized with the procedure shown in the
sources to be pursued by governors of provinces in hearing criminal cases.”
“The conviction was legal, and was justified provided the evidence was
sufficient to substantiate the charges, and the records do not prove the
contrary.”
As you can see, according to Husband, the entire process leading to the death
of Christ was legal. And, to him, the Bible does not provide sufficient evidence
to indicate otherwise, as he states that other “records do not prove the
contrary.”

Similarly, Max Radin, a former professorand author of the book The Trial of
Jesus ofNazareth, believes the accounts in the Bible are not credible, since
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not physical eyewitnessesto the
secretive proceedings.In his book, Radin claims there is “no clear statement
of how the knowledge ofthe trial came to those who reported it.”
The author, however, does not take into accountthe possibility that Christ
could have explained everything to His disciples when He was resurrected
from the dead. Jesus was a personal eyewitness to the trial and could have
accuratelyconveyedeverything to His followers to record in the pages of the
Bible. (Of course, the author also does not believe that Scripture is inspired.)
Later in the book, Radin provides insight into a common trial in Judea during
Christ’s time: “We are, most of us, familiar with the procedure of criminal
investigations. The accusedpersonis arrested, arraignedbefore a committing
magistrate, specificallyaccusedand formally tried. He may, and he generally
does, appealto a higher court, if he is convicted. All these things take time,
and there is almost necessarilyan interval of weeks andmonths betweenthe
later stages ofthe procedure. But above all, the procedure is strictly regulated
by law, and any serious deviation is not merely an irregularity but will
probably prevent punishment from being inflicted.”
By the above description alone, Jesus’trial was fraudulent. All of the above-
mentioned events take time, and usually lots of it! Radin himself admits this.
Yet the trial of Jesus was completedabout nine hours after He was arrested.
And due to the privacy of the proceedings, there were no witnesses to testify
on behalf of Jesus—butthere were many witnesses to testify againstHim!
How many court cases are you aware of that are similar to this? Probably
none.
Severalpages laterin the book, Radin attempts to reconcile his description of
a lengthy criminal investigationwith Jesus’nine-hour process:“Mark’s
version, even by his own testimony, cannot be more than a guess. Insteadof a
hurried night meeting, a harsh and brief interrogatory, a disregardof
establishedrules of evidence and procedure, the trial may have been formally

correct, and the judgment formally correcteven from the point of view of an
upright judge just though severe.”
As is the case with most scholars, Radindismisses the Bible as a source of
historically accurate information. He assumes that Mark guessedwhat“may
have” happened and, as such, believes the investigationcould have occurred
some other way. Yet the accounts in the Bible are the only sources of
information that coverthe trial. One cannot justify his position basedon
another resource;he canmerely render a guess or an assumption. When one
believes what was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only one
conclusioncanbe drawn: Christ’s trial was illegal, even by men’s standards.
What’s the Charge?
Some might wonder: “Why did the Jews deliver Jesus to the Romans to be
killed? Could they not have put Him to death themselves?”
A common view is that the Jews did not have the authority to execute
criminals. Continuing in The ProsecutionofJesus, Husband states,
“According to the common view, the right to try capital cases[casesinvolving
the death penalty] and even the right to pronounce sentences, stillrestedwith
the Sanhedrin, but the actual penalty could not be inflicted until the governor
had given his sanction.”
Those who believe Jesus’adversaries hadno legalbasis to execute Him
usually cite John 18:31, where Pilate, the Roman governor, said to the Jews,
“Take youHim, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews therefore
said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”
Lifted from its context, this verse does appear to indicate that the Jews were
unable to execute criminals. Yet the truth is that they did have the power to
try, convict and execute people, exceptin cases that involved treasonor
sedition againstthe Roman government.
Considerthe following:Stephen was accusedofblasphemy and as a result was
stoned to death by the Jewishauthority, as describedin the book of Acts
(6:11; 7:59). The Romans were not consultedin this executionand there is no
indication they disapproved.

On severaloccasions, the scribes and Pharisees soughtto kill Jesus (Mark
11:18;14:1; Luke 19:47;22:2; John 10:31). If this were illegal, it is doubtful
they would have even attempted to do so.
In one instance, elders of Judea brought before Jesus a woman who had been
caught committing adultery, and said, “Now Moses in the law commanded us,
that such should be stoned: but what say you?” (John 8:5). If the Jews did not
have the authority to put this womanto death, Jesus might have replied,
“Aren’t you aware ofRoman law? You don’t have the powerto execute
anyone.”
But He didn’t. He simply said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first
casta stone at her” (vs. 7). Jesus knew full well that the Jews were legallyable
to execute adulteressesand criminals. Also, if it were not legalfor the Jews to
perform executions, considerwhat might have happened if word of this event
reachedRoman authority? Surely, if such were the case, the Jews would not
have been so public about it.
Finally, the apostle Paul was stonedby a crowd in Asia, among whom were
Jews.
Wherever the Jews settledduring the time of Roman rule, they had the legal
right to execute people under their law.
So then what is the statement in John 18:31 referring to? “From the earliest
period the Roman governortook cognizance ofall matters that had relation to
the public security or the majesty of the Empire. Consequently there was not
a time at which the Roman magistrate would not step in when a charge of
treasonwas made, or a seditious movement began. The case againstJesus is
one especiallyin point, for the charge againsthim [treason] could under no
circumstances be tried by any tribunal except that of the governor” (The
ProsecutionofJesus).
The Roman government would only intervene in criminal affairs when
matters of treason, civil disobedience, incitement to revolution or attacks
againstCaesarwere involved. Otherwise, localadministration was conducted
by localofficials and the regularcourts of the conquerednations. Roman

authorities were not involved in every criminal proceeding throughout the
vast empire.
Jesus’opponents accusedHim of blasphemy, but since they did not want to
execute Him themselves, they createdcharges oftreasonagainstHim. This
way, the trial could be brought before Pontius Pilate, and, in their minds, he
and the Romans would be responsible for Jesus’death, not them.
Events Leading to Jesus’Death
Before identifying the precise reasons Jesus’trial was illegal, it will be helpful
to briefly examine events leading up to His crucifixion.
We begin with Judas Iscariotstriking a deal with the religious authorities:
“Then enteredSatan 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 covenantedto give him money. And he promised, and sought
opportunity to betray Him unto them in the absence ofthe multitude” (Luke
22:3-6).
Soonafter Judas enteredinto a pact with the religious leaders, Jesus andHis
faithful disciples ate their final meal togetheron Passoverevening. 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 mob 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
againstHim. Eventually, Christ was condemned to death, apparently on the
charge of blasphemy (vs. 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” (vs. 2). Notice they did not accuse Christof blasphemy in front
of Pilate. Instead, they chargedHim with treasonagainstthe RomanEmpire.
Pilate initially desired to free Jesus (vs. 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” (vs. 5).
When Pilate heard that Jesus was from Galilee, he sentHim to Herod, since
Galilee was under his jurisdiction (vs. 6-7). Herod was happy to see Jesus, as
he heard many things about Him. He desired to see Jesus perform some
miracles (vs. 8). But Jesus neither performed any miracles nor answeredhis
questions (vs. 9). Meanwhile, the chief priests and scribes stoodby and
accusedJesus(vs. 10). After being mocked, He was quickly sentback to Pilate
(vs. 11).
Pilate sought to release Jesusonce again, as he found no reasonto 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 whereofyou accuseHim: 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” (vs. 14-16).
But the crowd cried out with a loud voice, “Crucify Him, crucify Him” (vs.
21).
Pilate, a third time, respondedto the multitude, “Why, what evil has He done?
I have found no cause ofdeath in Him: I will therefore chastise Him, and let
Him go” (vs. 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 that this entire process lastedonly about nine hours, from after
midnight to around 9:00 in the morning. Jesus was seized, then tried,
condemned and crucified—allwithin a matter of nine hours! At 3:00 in the
afternoon, Jesus was spearedin His side and killed (John 19:34).

In that short period of time, the world eliminated the Savior!
With this backdrop, we are now ready to examine 12 paramount reasons the
arrest, trial and convictionof Jesus Christwere illegal.
First Reason
Recallthat Judas was bribed to betray Jesus in the absence ofthe crowds who
favored Him. The plan was to seize Jesus in the dark of night, sentence Him
just before sunrise—to make everything appear legal—transportHim 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 arrestedJesus? The answerleads to
the first blunder in Jesus’arrest, trial and conviction: Jesus was arrested
illegally.
Any trial may be dismissedas a mistrial, or illegal, if there is prejudice against
the individual being tried on the part of those participating. The accusedmust
be given full recourse of law to be able to sufficiently present his side.
Jesus, however, was botharrestedand tried by those prejudiced againstHim,
and was not allowedopportunity to present His case. Further, His judges were
the same individuals who bribed Judas! Surely one cannot saythese people
were impartial!
In addition, Jesus was arrestedsecretlyatnight and was not formally charged
of any offense. Judas simply pointed out Jesus, anda crowd arrestedHim.
There was no legalbasis for this.
In his book Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, Samuel
Mendelsohnstates, “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 canbe endangeredby the malice of the one who has confessed
himself a criminal.”
Since Judas accepteda bribe from a judge, certainly Judas would be
considereda criminal. And since Jesus’judges bribed Judas, they would be
consideredcriminals as well. This alone should have led to a mistrial!

SecondReason
Jesus was examinedby 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.”
Furthermore, “An accusedman was never subjectedto private or secret
examination,” as statedin Institutions de Moise, by J. Salvador.
Third Reason
The indictment againstJesus 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 againstJesus.
Alexander TaylorInnes, in The Trial of Jesus Christ, reveals that “until they
[the witnesses]spoke, andspoke in the public assembly, the prisoner was
scarcely[never] an accusedman. When they spoke, and the evidence of two
agreedtogether, it formed a legalcharge, libel or indictment, as well as the
evidence for its truth.”
In a correctly conductedprocedure, the evidence of the leading witnesses
constituted the charge. But with Jesus, no witnesses—andtherefore no
charges—werepresentedat the outset of the proceedings. Those in opposition
to Jesus, including those who would be in the court, simply arrestedHim.
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 resultedin no evidence. But instead
of dismissing the case, the Sanhedrin proceededto hold an illegal court.
Mendelsohnreveals why it was illegal:“Criminal casescanbe actedupon by
the various courts during the day time only, and by the LesserSanhedrins
from the close ofthe morning sacrifice till noon, and by the GreatSanhedrin
till evening.”
The JewishMishna states, “Leta capital offense be tried during the day, but
suspend at night.”
Moses Maimonides explains why trials are to be held during the daylight:
“The reasonwhy the trial of a capital offense could not be held at night is
because…the examinationof 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 ofa crime punishable by death was serious business. It
required those deciding the fate of the accusedto be at their best mental state,
which is hardly true in the early hours of the morning.
Fifth Reason
The Sanhedrin illegallyconvened to try a capitaloffense 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, IsaacWise, a JewishRabbi, provides decisive
evidence:“No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessionsonthe
Sabbath or on any of the seven biblical Holy Days. In casesofcapital crime,
no trial could be commencedon Friday or the day previous to any Holy Day,
because it was not lawful either to adjourn such cases longerthan overnight,
or to continue them on the Sabbath or Holy Day.”
Jesus, however, was arrestedon Passoverevening in A.D. 31, which is the day
before the First Day of Unleavened Bread—anannual Holy Day!

Sixth Reason
The trial concludedin one day.
Again, reading from the Mishna, we learn, “A criminal case resulting in the
acquittal of the accusedmay terminate the same day on which the trial began.
But if a sentence ofdeath is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before
the following day.”
Forcing a trial to last longerthan one day allows time for witnessesin support
of the accusedto come forth. Of course, Jesus’courtdid not want any such
witnesses to manifest themselves, so they ended it quickly.
So far, you have seensix reasons the trial of Jesus was illegal. In the May-June
issue of The Pillar, we will examine six more.
12 Reasons Jesus’TrialWas Illegal
Part 2
In Part One of this series, we examined six of the twelve reasons Jesus’trial
was illegal:
(1) Jesus was arrestedillegally; (2) He was examined by Annas in a secret
night proceeding;(3) the indictment againstHim was false;(4) the Sanhedrin
court illegally held its trial before sunrise; (5) the Sanhedrin illegally convened
to try a capitaloffense on a day before an annual Sabbath; and (6) the trial
concluded in one day.
We will now continue with the remaining six conclusive reasons.
Seventh Reason
In addition to the indictment againstJesus being false, it was used illegally.
Jesus was indicted basedon one statement with no supporting evidence. Here
is what transpired:

Two false witnesses testifiedthat 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 againstJesus.
However, it was false. Jesus neversaid this! Rather, He stated, “Destroythis
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, “Destroythis
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—andthe false witnessesknew this. They portrayed
Jesus as planning to destroy the physical Temple in Jerusalem. But this was
far from the meaning of His words!
Jesus’statementin John 2:19 was a response to those who askedHim to give a
sign (vs. 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 witnesseswere able to bring an indictment againstJesus.
Next, the high priest arose, andsaid to Jesus, “Aren’t You going to answer?
Do You have anything to sayabout these charges?”
Jesus saidnothing.
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, “Youhave saidcorrectly. Nevertheless, youshall 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? Youare 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 completelyunrelated to the
indictment brought by the false witnesses. Insteadof 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—thatHe claimed
to be the Messiah. Jesuswas indicted on one charge, tried on a separate
charge, and condemned on His own testimony.
JewishscholarMaimonides has this to say: “We have it as fundamental
principle of our jurisprudence, that no one can bring an accusationagainst
himself. Should a man make confessionofguilt before a legallyconstituted
tribunal, such confessionis not to be used againsthim unless properly attested
by two other witnesses”(Sanhedrin, IV, 2).
Yet, Jesus was condemnedon accountof 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, a former professorand author of the book The Trial of Jesus of
Nazareth, reveals why Jesus’testimonywas 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
pentateuchalreference makes this clear. It is in Leviticus, chapter 24, and the
incident which gave rise to the statute indicates the characterof the offense of
blasphemy in Jewishlaw. The half-Egyptian had cursed God…as under the
circumstances ofthe quarrel there described, he would have been likely
enough to do. No such thing could have been chargedagainstJesus by his
most inveterate enemies.”
Notice anotherviolation of law: “No attempt is evermade to lead a man on to
self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confessiononhis [the defendant’s]
part is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competentto convict him,
unless a legalnumber of witnessesminutely 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’ownassertionthat He is the Son of God as evidence
againstHim.
Eighth Reason

The condemnation of Jesus was illegalbecausethe merits of the defense were
not considered.
Immediately after hearing Jesus declare that He was the Son of God, the high
priest shouted, “He has spokenblasphemy.” That was it—there was no
diligent inquiry to follow. This despite what is statedin the Mishna: “The
judges shall weighthe matter in the sincerity of their conscience.”
It should be apparent that this did not occurin the case ofJesus. The high
priest and all present immediately formed an opinion. There was no further
investigationto see if He did in factblaspheme.
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 headthe anointing oil
was poured, and that is consecratedto 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!
Here is what Mendelssohnstates concerning this type of procedure: “A
simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial
has the effectof an acquittal.”
The Mishna indicates that the proper method of voting was for “the judges
eachin his turn to absolve or condemn.”
“The members of the Sanhedrin were seatedin the form of a semicircle atthe
extremity of which a secretarywas placed, whose business it was to recordthe
votes. One of these secretariesrecordedthe votes in favor of the accused, the
other againsthim.”
In Criminal Code of the Jews, Philip Benny wrote, “In ordinary cases the
judges voted according to seniority, the oldestcommencing; in a capital case,
the reverse order was followed. Thatthe younger members of the Sanhedrin

should not be influenced by the views or the arguments of their more mature,
more experiencedcolleagues, the junior judge was in these casesalways the
first to pronounce for or againstconviction.”
Clearly, none of this occurred in Jesus’trial.
Ninth Reason
Jesus being condemned by only part of the Sanhedrin was illegalbecause
those who would have voted againstthe guilty verdict were not present.
We know that at leastone member of the Sanhedrin during Jesus’trial was
not present: Josephof Arimathaea. In Luke 23, 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 consentedto the counseland deed of them;) he
was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews…” (vs. 50-51).
MostGreek scholars agreethat the word counselorrefers to a member of the
Sanhedrin. Interestingly, however, Josephwas not present during Jesus’trial.
All who were there unanimously condemned Him, but Luke states that Joseph
“had not consentedto the counseland deed of them.” This means he was
absent from the proceedings—whichwas illegal!In setting up a secretnight
meeting to try Jesus, those who wantedto put Him to death ensured that His
supporters would not be present to sidetrack their wickedintentions.
Also considerthat “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 ofdeath could not be executed” (Martyrdom of Jesus).
Tenth Reason
Jesus’sentence was illegallypronouncedin a place forbidden by law.
After being seized by a mob, Jesus was eventuallybrought to the high priest’s
house to be tried (Luke 22:54). Yet Jewishlaw 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 ofdeath can be passed
upon anyone soever.”

Maimonides adds, “A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the
Sanhedrin holds its sessions inthe appointed place” (Sanhedrin, XIV).
Eleventh Reason
Mostmembers of the Sanhedrin were disqualified from legally trying Jesus.
Considerwhat Mendelssohnwrote in Hebrew Maxims and Rules: “The robe
of the unfairly electedjudge is to be respectednot more than the blanket of
the [donkey].”
In the Bible and the works of Jewishhistorian Josephus, we find the names of
many of those who servedon the Sanhedrin during Jesus’time. According to
Josephus, these men—Caiaphas,Mathias, Ishmael, Simon, John, Alexander,
Ananias, among others—receivedbribes, 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, clearlyrequires 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 eachyear.
Another reasonthe judges were disqualified is due to their status as enemies
of the accused:“Normust there be on the judicial bench either a relation, or a
particular friend, or an enemy of either the accusedorthe accuser”(Hebrew
Maxims and Rules).
This is corroboratedby Philip Benny: “Norunder any circumstances was a
man to be at enmity with the accusedpersonpermitted to occupy a position
among his judges” (Criminal Code of the Jews).
Yet those on the court were bitter enemies of Jesus—andevenbribed someone
to betray Him!
Twelfth Reason
The initial charge of blasphemy was illegallyswitched to sedition.

In Part One, we saw that, though they had legalauthority to execute Him, the
Sanhedrin decided to bring Jesus before Pontius Pilate on the charge of
sedition. Initially, Jesus’ opponents accusedHim of blasphemy. But since they
were afraid of their fellow Jews and did not want to execute Him themselves,
they needed to switchthe charge to treasonagainstthe Roman government, as
we saw in Luke 23:“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” (vs. 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 wouldhave been dismissed. But since the Sanhedrin changed
the charge to treasonagainstthe Roman government, Pilate was forced to
listen to the case.
In the end, after severalattempts 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 againstJesus was rendered. Pilate ended the trial by turning
Jesus overto His soldiers to carry out the true motive of the Jewishleaders—
to have Jesus put to death on accountof supposed blasphemy, not sedition
(John 19:7).
An Innocent Man—Condemned!
Clearly, the entire trial of Jesus was a debacle—conductedillegallyfrom start
to finish. The facts are most plain.
Put yourself in Jesus’place for a moment: Imagine being betrayed by
someone you were close to. Imagine facing a trial you know is a sham.
Imagine being vehemently falsely accused. Imagine being spitefully treated by
thrill-seeking soldiers. Imagine enduring fierce scornand ridicule from
ignorant people. Then imagine facing one of the worst forms of execution
mankind has ever devised!

All this despite being completely innocent!
A Man who had never sinned was unjustly sentencedto death for crimes He
did not commit. He was condemned by a mob as a criminal—ironically by
those who could themselves be consideredcriminals!
Consider—andnever forget—that Jesus voluntarily endured this severe
injustice to pay the penalty of your sins!
Why was the Arrest, Trial and Conviction of Jesus Illegal?
The trial of Jesus Christ was without legalprecedent. He was convictedand
executedeven though Pilate found Him innocent! Let's briefly notice the
twelve outstanding reasons whythe arrest, trial and convictionof Jesus were
illegal.
1. There was no legalbasis for Jesus'arrestbecause no one had presented a
formal charge ofany crime; He simply was taken. Moreover, those who went
with Judas to have Jesus arrestedincluded the priests and elders--His judges
(Luke 22:52)--among whom were the ones who bribed Judas!
2. Jesus was subjectedto a secretpreliminary examination at night (John
18:12-14, 19-23). Jewishlaw permitted only daylight proceedings.

3. The indictment againstJesus was illegalbecause the judges themselves
brought up the charge without any prior testimony by witnesses. The Jewish
court (the Sanhedrin) by law was not allowedto originate charges.
4. The court illegally proceededto hold its trial of Jesus before sunrise so no
one would be available to testify on His behalf.
5. The trial began on a day before an annual Sabbath (John 18:28), even
though Jewishlaw did not permit the trial of a capitaloffense to begin on a
Friday or the day before an annual Sabbath. Jesus was arrestedandtried on
the 14th of Abib, the day before the first annual Sabbath of the Feastof
Unleavened Bread.
6. Jesus'trial was concludedin one day. Jewishlaw says:"If a sentence of
death is to be pronounced, it [a criminal case]cannotbe concluded before the
following day" (Mishna, "Sanhedrin" IV, 1). This was to allow sufficient
opportunity for any witnesses in support of the accusedto present themselves.
Jesus'trial was conducted in private and completed in less than nine hours!
7. Two false witnesseschargedJesuswith saying He would destroythe temple
made with hands (Mark 14:58); yet He was condemned by the court on
another false charge--thatof blasphemy. He was condemned on His own
testimony (Luke 22:67-71). But according to Jewishlaw, a person could not be
condemned on his own testimony.
8. The merits of Jesus'defense were not considered. Despite Deuteronomy
13:14, the high priest did not "inquire, and make search, and ask diligently"
to see whether Jesus'statementwas blasphemous. The law in the Mishna says:
"The judges shall weighthe matter in the sincerity of their conscience"

("Sanhedrin" IV, 5). Instead, the court pronounced sentence instantly and
unanimously!
9. Those who would have voted againstcondemnationwere not at Jesus'trial.
Josephof Arimathaea was a member of the court, yet he was not there (Luke
23:50-51). Jesus'opponents had made sure that only those who hated Him
would be there.
10. The sentence was pronouncedin a place forbidden by law. The trial took
place at the high priest's house (Luke 22:54). According to the law, a death
sentence couldbe pronounced only in the court's appointed place.
11. Mostof the judges were legallydisqualified to try Jesus. Some had bought
their way into office, according to Josephus. Also, since they were known
enemies of Jesus, Jewishlaw required that they disqualify themselves so He
could be tried by impartial judges.
12. The court illegally switchedthe charges from blasphemy to treasonbefore
Pilate. Jesus'opponents wanted Him killed, but they did not want to do it
themselves. So they chargedHim with treason(Luke 23:2)--a Romancrime--
so the Romans would be responsible for His death. No evidence was presented
(John 18:29-30). Pilate, aftera brief interview, saw that Jesus was not guilty
(John 18:38, 19; Matt. 27:18). Fearing the crowd, however, he allowedthe
crucifixion of an innocent man. Pilate did not even pronounce Him guilty; he
merely turned Him over to the soldiers.
What a mockeryof justice this trial was!All this illegality, in addition to His
crucifixion, Jesus willingly suffered to pay the penalty of our sins in our stead!

Source for this page: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-was-the-arrest-
trial-conviction-of-jesus-illegal.html
JOHN MACARTHUR
The Illegal, Unjust Trials of Jesus, Part1
Sermons Matthew 26:57, 59–61 2389 Jan13, 1985
We find ourselves in our study of God’s Word right at the point where our
Lord is offering His life for the sins of men and women. Turn in your Bible to
Matthew, chapter 26. We come to a new paragraph in our study this
morning, verses 57 and following. This is the sectionthat gives us the record
of the illegal, unjust trial of Jesus. And I want to try to lay a foundation for us
this morning to understand the nature of the trial of Christ that we might
understand truly how illegaland unjust it was, and how, in spite of that, it
demonstrates His holy, perfectmajesty. It is a remarkable, remarkable
portion of Scripture. Let me give you a little background. The Jews have
always prided themselves on their sense of fairness, their sense of equity, their
sense ofjustice, and rightly so, for they have basically a foundation of justice
that has benefited the whole world. The sense of justice and jurisprudence
that we have, even in America, finds its origins in the Judaic justice system, as
do all equitable systems around the world.
The Jewishsystemof jurisprudence and law and judgment was predicatedon
one Old Testamentpassage, primarily, and that is Deuteronomy16, verses 18
to 20. This is what it says:“You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers
in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your
tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not
distort justice, you shall not be partial, you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe
blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. Justice
and only justice you shall pursue, that you may live and possessthe land
which the Lord your God is giving you.”

Now, there you have God’s bottom line standard for judgment and justice;
localjudges, judging the people with fairness and righteousness,never
distorting what is true, not being partial, never taking a bribe, justice and
only justice. You pursue it in order that you may live and possessthe land
which the Lord your God is giving you. And throughout the history of the
Jewishpeople, there has been that undergirding sense ofjustice and judgment
as a standard for their system of jurisprudence. Now, as they beganto work
out the practicalapplication of Deuteronomy, chapter 16, in any area or
regionor locality where there were 120 men as heads of families, there was to
be in that locality a localcouncil. Whereveryou had at least120 men who
were heads of families, you had enoughpeople to constitute a localcouncil. It
was really a synagogue community; that community was large enoughto have
a synagogue, andthen, of course, to have this localcouncil. The councils
became knownas Sanhedrin. That is a Hebrew term, but it is basically
transliterated right off of a Greek term which means “sitting together.” They
were a group of men who came and sat togetherto make judgments, to decide
issues of civil and criminal aspects. So in any group of 120 men who were
head of families, any locality, they would have a Sanhedrin, a sitting together
council. The council would be made up of 23 men. Always an odd number, of
course, so that in any voting there would always be a majority. These 23 men
would be takenfrom the elders of the village. They actedas judges and jury
in all matters.
Now, where you had a village or a town smallerthan 120 men who were heads
of families, there would be a group of either three or sevenelders, chosento
rule over those smaller villages. And they would make the judgments and
render the verdicts in the casesofconflict or criminal activity. These councils
or Sanhedrin constituted basicallythe government over a synagogue
community. Now, one of them on the councils, whether small or large, would
be called the chief ruler. So in the New Testamentgospels,whenyou read
about the chief ruler, he is one who presides over that localcouncil. But all of
them served as a court. And whenever you read, such as in Matthew 5:22 or
Matthew 10:17 or elsewhere,that you would be brought before the council,
that’s what it has in view; the localgoverning group of judges who sit over
any given locality, any given synagogue community of Jews.

Now, in Jerusalem, which of course was the capitalcity, the greatreligious
centerof the life of Israel, there was what was calledthe GreatSanhedrin –
the GreatCouncil. This was composedmostlikely of 70 men who were elders,
24 chief priests, 24 elders, 23 scribes plus the high priest makes 71, so they got
an odd number by including the high priest. They were the final court for
appeal. Any personwho felt that the adjudication made at a lowerlevel was
not fair could appealto the Sanhedrin and the Supreme Court level in
Jerusalem, and under some conditions, no doubt, gain a hearing. They were
the highestand ultimate ruling body in Israel. The men who were on that
group were chosenbecause oftheir wisdom. They were chosenfrom the
lessercouncils. Theydid their apprenticeship work by serving a lesser
council, and if they proved themselves to be uniquely wise, were brought to
the Sanhedrin level. Also, people were invited to sit on the Sanhedrin who
became aware oftheir duties and who grew to understand the function by
being pupils who satat the feet of other Sanhedrinists. So it was made up,
then, of students and pupils of the group itself, as well as those takenfrom
localgroups, brought to that point because oftheir high esteem, and their
proven track recordof wisdom and impartiality, and so forth.
Now, the Sanhedrin in terms of criminal procedure, guaranteedto a person
who was under prosecutionseveralthings. There were three primary things
in relation to criminal procedure that the laws of jurisprudence upheld in the
Sanhedrin guaranteedto a person. Number one: public trial – public trial. In
other words, there was to be no hidden, secret, clandestine trials. Everything
was to be open and exposed, so that no one could be framed and railroaded
into some kind of execution or some kind of penalty without just trial taking
place. The judges were always, then, under the scrutiny of the populace, who
were able to see and attend and, to some extent at least, know what was going
on. And courts today have maintained the same thing. Secondly, the
Sanhedrin guaranteedfor anyone brought in on a criminal procedure the
right of self-defense. Thatis, there was to be a defender. There was to be
someone who provided a defense for the accused. He had the right to bring in
defense of himself in the mouth of other witnesseswho could participate in the
trial. Thirdly, no one could be convicted of anything unless convictedor
proven to be guilty by two or three witnesses.

So basically, those three things: public trial, the right of defense, and a solid
case basedupon the evidence of more than one witness. Those things remain
with us even today under the basic guarantee ofcourts in our own society.
And so that was in place by the time of our Lord, and that is very important
to know as we get through this trial, because you’ll see how they violated all of
these kind of things, and many more, as we shall see. I might add at this point
that false witnessing was so serious a crime, because their punishments were
so swift and so serious, that anyone who gave false testimony was punished
with the very penalty the false witness soughtto bring upon the person he
witnessedagainst. In other words, if you came into the court to witness that
someone had committed a murder, and you were giving false witness, you
would pay the death penalty yourself. Whateverpenalty you sought, you
received, if your testimony was false.
And that comes from Deuteronomy 19, verses 16 to 19. “If a malicious
witness rises up againsta man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both of the
men” – that is, the one accusedand the accuser – “who have the dispute shall
stand before the Lord, before the priests, and the judges who will be in office
in those days.” In other words, the Lord will bring about His will through
that group. “And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is
a false witness and he has accusedhis brother falsely, then you shall do to him
just as he had intended to do to his brother; thus you shall purge the evil from
among you,” Deuteronomy 19:16 to 19. You getrid of false witnesses if they
realize that that which they seek falselyis what they’re going to get if they’re
caught, because obviously the system of justice depends so much on true
witnesses.
Eachcase, also,was to be publicly heard; no unjust act allowedto proceed
behind closeddoors. And I think it’s most interesting to note that in any case
where death was prescribedas the sentence, the execution could not be
accomplisheduntil the third day. For example, if today the sentence was
rendered, this would be the first day. One whole day, tomorrow, would be the
secondday, and not until the morning of the third day could the council
reconvene and reaffirm the death sentence, and execute the person that same
day. And the day in the middle was a day to be sure that all the evidence was
in, and there was no further need for testimony. And by the way, the

witnesses who witnessedagainstthe person which brought about the death
penalty were the ones who had to castthe first stone in the execution. The
witnesses were the executioners. So you wantedto be very certain that your
testimony was true, or you would not only be guilty of lying, you would be
guilty of murder. And so they tended to protectthemselves from false
witnessing by making the witness himself the executioner, and that would add
the lastdegree of certainty, or assistin adding the last degree ofcertainty, to
the testimony the persongave.
Now, this is basedon Deuteronomy 17:7, and is what our Lord had in mind,
you’ll remember, when all these people accusedthis womantaken in adultery,
and said she’s committed adultery. And Jesus saidto them, “All right, you’re
the witnessesagainsther, then let he that is without sin,” do what? “Castthe
first stone.” In other words, that would have been the normal procedure. If
she’s guilty, then we’re going to execute her, and you that have witnessed
againsther will castthe stones. The only thing He saidis if you haven’t done
the same thing, then you have a right to castthat stone. The implication
there, of course, is that the witnesseswere the executioners, andthat was the
system; that’s the way it worked.
Now, I want to give you a little bit of an insight, and it’s essentialto do this,
into the procedure for a Sanhedrin trial. There’s a very helpful book by
Simon Greenleafentitled, The Testimony of the Evangelists, andin it there is
a whole sectionby JosephSalvadoron this matter of Sanhedrin trial
procedure. I think it’s essentialenoughthat I want to share it with you.
Listen – and we’ll know what should have happened in the trial of Christ.
“On the day of the trial, the executive officers of justice cause the accused
person to make his appearance. Atthe feet of the elders were placed men
who, under the name of auditors or candidates, followedregularly the sittings
of the council.” In other words, the council was audited by some objective
men, who scrutinized everything going on to make sure it conformed to justice
and equity. “The papers in the case were read, and the witnesses were called
in succession. The presidentaddressedthis exhortation to eachwitness,
quote: ‘It is not conjecture or whateverpublic rumor has brought to you that
we ask of you. Consider that a greatresponsibility rests upon you, that we are
not occupiedby an affair like a case ofpecuniary interests, in which the injury

may be repaired. If you cause the condemnation of a person unjustly accused,
his blood and the blood of all the posterity of him, of whom you will have
deprived the earth, will fall on you, and Godwill demand of you an account,
as He demanded of Cain an accountof the blood of Abel. Now speak.’”
Now, that sort of filtered down to us through the years as, “Put your hand on
the Bible and swearbefore Godto tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth.” And that comes right out of that Jewishconcept, which even
goes a step further and says, “If you pronounce a guilty sentence that means
death, his blood is going to be on you, and not just his blood, but all the blood
of all the unborn posterity that will never reachthis earth because you have
takenhis life, and you would be blood guilty before God. Now that you know
that, speak.” Furthermore, Salvadortells us, “In the Sanhedrin process a
woman could not be a witness, because she wouldnot have the courage to give
the first blow to the condemned person. Norcould a child, that is
irresponsible, nor a slave, nor a man of bad character, nor one who has
infirmities that prevent the full enjoyment of his physical and moral faculties.
The simple confessionofan individual againsthimself or the declaration
howeverrenowned would not decide a condemnation.” It’s very important.
Jewishlaw said no personcan himself testify againsthimself, and on the basis
of that single testimony, be held guilty.
And we have that same kind of thing today as gained from this basic
perception. In fact, they said, “We hold it as fundamental that no one shall
prejudice himself. If a man accuses himselfbefore a tribunal, we must not
believe him unless the fact is attestedby two other witnesses.” And then they
said, “The witnessesare to attestto the identity of the party, to depose to the
month, day, hour, and circumstances ofthe crime.” In other words, it can’t
be hearsayor generalities. “Afteran examination of these proofs, the judges
who believe the party innocent stated their reasons. Thosewho believedhim
guilty spoke afterwards, and with the greatestmoderation. If one of the
auditors was entrusted by the accusedwith his defense, orif he wishedin his
own name to present any elucidations in favor of innocence, he was allowedto
do that.” He could address the judges and the people. “But this liberty was
not granted to him if his opinion was in favor of condemnation.” In other
words, they really leaned on the merciful side.

“Other than a judge could speak only if he was speaking in behalf of the
innocence of the party, not if he was speaking in behalf of the guilt, because
they didn’t want to start a rabble,” an emotionalresponse that could bring
about guilt by fervor, guilt by mob rule, guilt by emotion. Lastly, “When the
accusedpersonhimself wished to speak, they gave the most profound
attention, and when the discussionwas finished, one of the judges
recapitulatedthe case and they removed all the spectators. Two scribes took
down the votes of the judges. One of them noted those who were in favor of
the accused;the other, those who condemned him. Eleven votes” – if only 23
were there; even in the greatsynagogue, 23 was a quorum. If only 23 were in
the greatsynagogue,orthe 23 in the lesserones – I mean the greatSanhedrin,
or 23 in the lesserones. “Elevenvotes out of 23 was sufficient to acquit, it
required 13 to convict. If a majority of votes acquitted, the accusedwas
dischargedinstantly. If he was to be punished, the judges postponed
pronouncing sentence until the third day. And during the intermediate day,
they could not be occupiedwith anything but the cause, andthey abstained
from eating” – they had to fast.
And that’s a very important note, because that indicates to us that they could
never have this kind of trial the day before a feastday, or they would be
fasting on a feast, and violating their Jewishlaw. That’s another violation of
the trial of Christ. “Theywere to abstain from food, from wine or liquor or
anything that might render their minds less capable ofreflection. Then on the
morning of the third day,” this was the procedure, “they returned to the
judgment seat, and eachjudge who had not changedhis opinion said, ‘I
continue of the same opinion and condemn.’ Anyone who had first
condemned might at this sitting acquit, but he who had once acquitted could
not change his mind to condemn. If a majority condemned, two magistrates
immediately accompaniedthe condemned person out to the place of
punishment.” In other words, they executedhim on the same day they
sentencedhim. This, of course, is consistentwith the Old Testamentpassage
in Ecclesiastes,chapter8, that where you have swift punishment, you have
decreasing crime.
“The elders satin the seats in the judgment hall while the man was ushered
out towardhis place of execution. They placed at the entrance of the

judgment hall an officerof justice with a flag in his hand. A secondofficerof
justice goton a horse and rode after that party headedfor execution. He
followedthe prisoner, and constantly turned around and lookedback at the
man with the flag. During this interval, if any person came to announce to the
Sanhedrin any new evidence in favor of the prisoner, the first officerwould
wave his flag, and the secondone, as soonas he saw it, brought back the
prisoner. If the prisoner declaredto the magistrates that he recollectedsome
reasons whichhad escapedhim, some thoughts that had escapedhim, they
brought him before the judges no less than five times. If no incident occurred,
the processionadvancedslowly, proceededby a herald. And the herald in
front of it was in a loud voice addressing the people, ‘This man – and stated
his name – is led to punishment for such a crime, the witnesseswho have
swornagainsthim are – and he named the persons – If anyone has evidence to
give in his favor, let him come forth quickly.’” This was heralded all the way
so the front of the processionwas heralding “If there’s any evidence, tell us,”
the back of the processionwas looking back to see if anyone was coming, and
the man with the flag was there ready to wave it, stop the process. And
finally, “If they arrived at the place of punishment,” nothing deterred them,
“they made the man drink a stupefying beverage in order to render the
approachof death less terrible, and executedhim.”
Now, when you look at that whole scene, you would say, “Boy, if you were in
the Sanhedrin’s hands, you would be in pretty goodhands.” These people
have a tremendous sense of justice, mixed with a sense ofmercy. And they
have built in some safeguards here that are going to make it pretty goodfor
someone who is innocent, because you’ve got all kinds of opportunities to
come back in with testimony. And the tremendous crime of false witnessing is
a goodpreventative, too. And the care of fasting and reflecting for one whole
day and all of these things, make it sound like it would be a pretty safe place
to be. But it didn’t turn out to be so for Christ. Let me tell you why. In the
Jewishtrial of Jesus Christ, and here’s the key point, they violated every
single law of justice and jurisprudence known to them. They violated every
single one of them willfully, so that the trial of Jesus Christ is the most unjust
trial in human history. It has to be, for this court condemned to death the
only truly innocent person who ever lived.

It is a mockeryof justice. It is a violation of everything in their system of
jurisprudence. The axiom of the Sanhedrin was this: the Sanhedrin is to save,
not destroylife. Well, that wasn’ttrue in this case. No criminal trial could be
carried through the night – this one was. The judges who condemned a
criminal had to have a day in betweenbefore the execution, and they had to
fast all day – they didn’t. They killed Jesus the same day. There had to be
witnesses who witnessedagainstHim – there were none. There had to be
defense – there was no defense. There was not even any indictment, there was
no arraignment, there was no nothing, there was no crime. And that and
many other compile a list of things they did to violate the laws that they
themselves affirmed.
Now, let me give you another sort of basic thing you need to understand going
into this. Jesus had two major trials – two major trials. First was a Jewish
ecclesiasticalreligious trial, and then a Roman secularpoliticaltrial. And the
reasonis this: the Jews were an occupiedpeople. Rome was in authority and
control over them, and the Jews did not have the right of execution. They
couldn’t kill a criminal. They didn’t have the right of capitalpunishment.
The Romans reservedthat right. So the Jews couldcondemn Jesus to death,
but they couldn’t execute Him. So whateverthey could accomplishin their
religious trial, they had to sellthe Romans on, because the Romans were the
ones that would have to kill Jesus. And that is why you have to have two
major trials – a trial before the Jews, andthen the evidence and the supposed
evidence and the supposed crime that Jesus commits is carried to the Romans,
who have to see this as a viable crime and a reasonfor execution, and carry
out the execution. So, you will see, then, as this trial unfolds, a Jewishaspect
to the trial, and a Gentile one as well.
Now, I’m going to give you a further thought. The Jewishtrial and the
Gentile trial eachhave three phases. Theyeachhave three phases, so in total,
there’s really six different trials Jesus was involved in. The Jewishtrial began
when Jesus was takento Annas, Annas sent Him to Caiaphas and the
Sanhedrin in the middle of the night, and then the third phase, Caiaphas and
the Sanhedrin met againin the morning, after dawn, to try to legitimatize
their evil deed, and those are the three phases ofthe Jewishtrial – Annas, then
Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, then Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin againin the

morning. Now, after they had finished their work, they pushed Him off to the
Romans, and that meant taking Him to Pilate. First He went to Pilate, Pilate
sent Him to Herod, Herod sentHim back to Pilate, and Pilate condemned Him
to death. There are the three phases ofthe Roman trial. Both the Jews and
the Romans violated all of justice, violated all of truth, all equity, all fairness,
and committed horrendous crimes againstan innocent man.
From Gethsemane, He was takento Annas, for what was to be an
arraignment. Annas was to function like the grand jury, coming up with an
indictment. From Annas, He was sent to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin for the
main Jewishtrial. They did what they wanted to do, and then from there, in
the morning after daybreak – so that they could make it legal, it had to
happen in the day – they had a very brief thing, may have lastedten minutes,
and they reaffirmed their condemnation of Jesus Christ. And then from
there, He was sent to Pilate, and then Pilate sent Him to Herod, because Pilate
knew He was innocent. Then Herod sentHim back to Pilate, and Pilate,
under the pressure the Jews put on him that they would tell Caesarthat he
was an inadequate ruler, decided to condemn Jesus to death. And that’s the
sequence.
And all this series of trials leads to the executionof Jesus Christ, and it isn’t
that they found something out about Him and therefore they killed Him. It is
that they wanted Him dead, and they had to invent means to bring about His
death. The sentence was alreadydetermined, it was the crime they didn’t
have. Now, as we begin to look at the elements of the unjust, illegaltrial of
Jesus, let’s begin with the first aspect:the illegal, unjust confrontation. Look
at verse 57. “And they that had laid hold on Jesus, ledHim awayto Caiaphas,
the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled,” andwe’ll
stop there. Now, Matthew says “theyled Him awayto Caiaphas, the high
priest,” and that’s true, but Matthew doesn’t give us the phase before that.
Matthew just goes right into the main trial. In order to getthe first phase of
it, we have to go to John, chapter 18, so let’s do that, and it’s a very important
portion of this story.
In John, chapter 18, we come to the first part, the illegal, unjust
confrontation, the initial arraignment. Notice in verse 12, “Thenthe band,”

that’s the speira, the Romancohort, could have been as many as 600 men, the
soldiers of Rome, “and the captain,” their chiliarch, their leader, “and the
officers of the Jews,”who would be the temple police, “took,” and the word
“took” is a technicalword, sometimes usedfor arrest, “Jesus andbound Him,
and led Him awayto Annas first.” Now, Johnthen helps us here to fill in the
whole story. You know, in studying the gospels,it’s a composite. The life of
Christ is given in four different paintings, in a sense, eachofwhich
emphasizes different features and aspects ofthe same scene, and so, first He
was led to Annas. He is bound. I think it interesting to note that – the
sacrifice, Psalm118:27 says thatthe sacrifice was tied to the horns of the
altar. Those horns were there to tie down the sacrifice, andChrist is bound
almost as a fulfillment of the typology of sacrifice. He is bound, even as Isaac
was bound to be sacrificed. And He comes like a criminal, bound to be
offered as a sacrifice, andHe is led awayto Annas.
Now, the idea of taking Him to Annas is that Annas is the brains behind
everything. Annas despises JesusChrist. Jesus is a threat to his security, his
power, his prestige, everything. He resents Jesus’holiness becausehe’s so
utterly unholy. He resents Jesus’perfectionbecause he’s so utterly vile.
Everything about Jesus causeshim anger, and he is under the direction, of
course, ofthe greatchoreographerwho’s staging the whole scene here, and
that’s Satan himself and all his demons. “This is your hour,” Jesus said, “and
the powerof darkness.” So he’s one of the castof characters manipulated by
hell itself, and he has a venomous hatred for Jesus Christ. There are reasons
for it, which I shall give you in a moment. But he is basicallybehind
everything. He is behind it all. And so they send Jesus to him, in his house,
which is illegal. It’s illegalbecause it’s at night and it’s in his house, and no
such procedures were to occurlike that.
Who is Annas? Annas had been high priest for about five or six years, but
that 20 years before this. He was not now the existing high priest, Caiaphas
was. He was high priest that year, John 18:13 says. That’s kind of interesting
because under God’s design, high priests were high priests for life. You didn’t
have them chosenevery year or so. But it was becoming such a political
position, and it was bought and sold, in a sense, andthen it was so connected
with being able to bow the knee to Rome that high priests came and went

rather rapidly. And from what I understand of history, the Romans had
actually pressurized Annas out of the office of high priest because he was
amassing so much power. He was a wily and cleverman. And so he had been
pushed out as high priest after about five or six years, but still carries the
name, because a high priest was to be a high priest for life. But when Annas
went out as high priest, five of his sons and one son-in-law, Caiaphas, who
married his daughter, succeededhim, so he maintained control. It was “in the
family,” if you will. And he maintained this title of high priest, and he was the
boss. He was the head of racketeering. He was behind everything. In fact, all
of the money changers and the selling and the buying in the temple, all of that
was called“the bazaars of Annas.” He gota piece of all that action. He was
the big boss, if you will, in the temple mafia, the temple criminal proceedings
of extortion. He controlled it all.
I’ll give you just a little illustration. When you as a Jew would come to the
temple, you would never come empty-handed. You would never come with
nothing. Well, you don’t come to God with nothing in your hand. And so,
when a Jew came he would bring either a sacrifice oran offering. If you
brought an offering, he would bring some coins to put in those bell-shaped
receptaclesthat were up on the wall where he gave his offering. The problem
was he couldn’t put pagancoinage in there, because pagancoinage oftenwas
inscribed with an image, and an image to a Jew is a what? Is an idol. So what
had to happen was there had to be an exchange of his coinage fortemple
coinage, whichwas acceptable. And when he came in with his money and
made the exchange, he was taken, if you will. It was exorbitant, it was
extortion, and the money changers were charging the people way more than
they should – not giving a just return in temple currency.
On the other hand, let’s say a Jew came in with his lamb. Let’s say he had
brought a lamb out of his ownflock, and he came to offer it to the Lord, or a
pigeon or a turtledove, depending on his economic capability, and he came in
there. The first thing he would have to do is take his animal to a screening
group of priests, and those priests would examine the animal to see if it was
without blemish. Chances are, if you didn’t buy it in the temple, it was
blemished. You understand? You could avoid all of that by coming with
nothing, going to the temple stockyard, and buying an already approved

animal at about three times the price. But what choice did you have if your
animal was turned down? And so anotherway whereby they extorted from
the people;this is the bazaarof Annas, this is how he is getting rich and
influential. The first thing Jesus did when He came to the city of Jerusalemin
John, chapter 2, was cleanse the temple. Remember that? John 2:13 to 17,
He went in and overturned the tables and threw everybody out. Now, that
was His initial contactwith Annas and his operation, and you geta little idea
of why Annas didn’t like Jesus, right?
And then again, when Jesus came back, if you read it in Mark, chapter 11,
verses 15 to 18, when He came into the city this passionweek, He went to the
temple, and you remember He cleansedthe temple, overturned the tables of
the money changers, wouldn’t let anybody carry anything out of there. And it
says the Jews then met togetherto discuss how they could kill Him. He was
disrupting everything. He was disrupting their religious teaching. He was
disrupting their powerand authority. He was disrupting their business. He
was really a problem. And He said at that time, you remember, that, “How is
it that My Father’s house is to be a house of prayer, and you have made it
into” – what – “a den of thieves?” And in effect, calledAnnas and all his
cohorts a bunch of thieves.
So Annas wanted to be rid of Jesus, and the Jews knew that he was the
braintrust behind everything. They figured that’s a goodplace to start.
Annas will act like a grand jury, he’ll come up with some kind of an
indictment, and we’ll get that indictment againstJesus, bring Him into the
Sanhedrin, condemn Him and execute Him. Now, look at John 18:19, and see
what happened. “The high priest then askedJesus ofHis disciples and of His
doctrine.” Annas said, “I want to know what You teach, and I want to know
about Your followers. How widespreadis Your movement, and who are Your
followers?” Now, we don’t know all the specifics that are implied in that idea,
but he askedabout disciples and doctrine. “Who follows You? How many
follow You? What’s Your range of influence? And what is it that You
teach?” And Annas violates right here all sense of justice. If you bring a
person in for an arraignment, you tell them what they’ve done, you don’t ask
them. You don’t ask them to talk in generalities, hoping you canuncover a

crime for which you’ve already given a sentence. This is illegal and unjust,
and Jesus’answerindicates it.
It’s a tremendous answer. Verse 20, “Jesus answeredhim, I spoke openly to
the world. I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple where the Jews
always resort, and in secrethave I said nothing. Why are you asking Me?” In
other words, He in effectsays, “If you’ve gota case, presentit. “Ask them
who heard Me what I have said unto them. Behold, they know what I said.”
If you’ve gota case, let’s see your witnesses, Annas. Don’task Me. I can’t
incriminate Myself. If you have a case, show it. He calls for proper legal
procedure. He shows the evil, ugly injustice of Annas. He wasn’t to give
evidence againstHimself. He wasn’tto convict Himself as His own witness for
prosecution. Callyour witnesses, Annas. Everything I’ve said, I’ve said
openly and publicly, people have heard it, there are plenty of people, you can
bring them in, they’ll tell you. If you want justice, it’s out there. If you want
testimony, it’s out there. Call your witnesses. Annas was embarrassed. He
was frustrated. He was unmasked. And you could have cut the air with a
knife. Believe me, Annas was no match for the infinite mind of Jesus Christ.
And when the air gets thick like that, and everybody’s neck starts to swell,
and everybody gets red ears, and it’s a very embarrassing moment, somebody
breaks the ice, and in verse 22, “When He had thus spoken, one of the officers
who stoodby struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, ‘Answereth Thou
the high priest so?’” SlappedHim acrossthe face and said, “How dare you
answerthe high priest that way?” He had corneredAnnas and unmasked
him as a man who was violating the laws of justice. And this man, wanting to
defend his master who had lost face, slappedJesus across the face. And the
Lord basicallyoffered no emotional retaliation. You remember in Acts 22
and verse 30, Paul was brought before the same Sanhedrin, and in chapter 23,
Paul gives testimony of how he’s lived with a clearconscience before God, and
he’s been faithful, and so forth, and the high priest gets upset, and he says to
one of his servants, “Smite that man.” And then Paul says to the high priest,
“Godsmite you, you whited wall.” Well, I mean that sounds like I’d react,
but that’s not how Jesus reacted.

Jesus didn’t reactthat way. “He was reviled,” says Peterin 1 Peter2:23, “yet
He reviled not again,” right? He never reactedthat way. This was the hour
of His death, He was resolute, He was ready, this was hell’s moment, He
would go through it, He had settledthat in the garden, in the Father’s will.
He was moving to the cross. There was nothing to sayin regard to an angry
retort. He answeredhim in one of the most marvelous responses. He said, “If
I have spokenevil, bear witness of the evil.” If I have done something evil or
said something evil, bring your witnesses. “IfI have spokenwell, why did you
hit Me?” Well, there’s no answerfor that except to say, “I hit You because
You embarrassedthe high priest,” who should have been embarrassed. Jesus,
always the master of response;if you’ve got a case, give it. If you don’t, why
are you hitting Me? If I’m guilty, prove it. If I’m innocent, why are you
hitting Me?
Well, what did Annas do? Well, the only thing he could do. Verse 24, “Annas
sent Him bound to Caiaphas.” I mean he was finished. What could he do? I
mean it’s in the middle of the night. It isn’t even three o’clock in the morning
yet, because the cock hasn’tcrowed. The cock crows atthree. Cock crow is
from twelve to three, so it isn’t even the end of the cock crow period when the
cock crows to mark the end of that time, around three o’clock. And we know
that it isn’t three o’clock, because Peterhasn’tquite yet denied Him, so it’s
earlier than three o’clock. It’s the middle of the night. Annas is in his own
house in the dark, clandestine night, trying to pull off an arraignment; can’t
do it, winds up embarrassed. Has to have his servant slap Jesus in the face,
and then says, “GetHim out of here, take Him to Caiaphas.” So He goes to
Caiaphas with no indictment and no arraignment at all – no crime. Is this an
illegaland unjust confrontationwith Annas? It is. It’s in the middle of the
night; that’s illegal. It was without witnesses;that’s illegal. There was no
crime. There was no charge. Annas had no legalauthority. He wasn’t even
an official prosecutor, in any sense. And his home was an improper place to
have such a thing. But don’t be startled, that’s just one of many illegalities.
They just mount and mount and mount and mount and mount.
Let’s go back to Matthew, chapter 26. And just briefly this, we see the illegal
unjust confrontation, now look at the illegal unjust convening in verse 57, and
we’ll pick it up there. “And they that had seizedJesus, then after Annas led

Him awayto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and elders,” that
makes up the council, or Sanhedrin, “were assembled.” The chiefpriests, the
temple police, the elders, the soldiers, take Jesus,bound from Annas to
Caiaphas, and Caiaphas is equally wretched, equally evil. Of course, anything
Annas likes, he likes. Anything Annas hates, he hates. They’re in the same
thing, and he is equally the manipulated tool of Satan. He is threatened. He is
possessive. He is powerhungry. He is greedy. He hates truth. He hates
righteousness. He hates holiness. He hates Jesus Christ.
So in the dark of night, Jesus is transported from the house of Annas to the
house of Caiaphas, somewhere nearthe temple. The scribes and elders are all
gathering – in fact, they were getting them togetherwhen He was at the house
of Annas. It’d be having Him at Annas’ allowedthem the time to get
everybody together. And by the way, according to Mark 14:53, it says all of
them were there. I would like to suggest, however,that basedon Luke 23:50
and 51, there is at leastone that wasn’tthere, and that doesn’t violate the idea
of all, “all” meaning “all of them,” in the sense that a great number of them
were there. But I would like to suggestto you that Josephof Arimathaea was
not there, because it says in Luke 23:50 and 51 that that man, who gave the
tomb to Jesus, was “a goodand righteous man, and consentednot to the death
of Christ with them.” He wasn’t there to vote on that. And so, apart from,
say, him, the vast majority of them, perhaps even all the remaining ones, were
there, ready to do their foul deed to Christ.
And of course, I’m sure some of them didn’t even realize what was going on
they were so totally the pawns of Satanic possessionand influence. No public
trial here, no defense, nobody to give testimony for Christ, nothing. And here
they are in Caiaphas’house, absolutelyillegal. Luke 22:54 says they met in
Caiaphas’house in a large room. When He went to Annas’ house, He was in a
courtyard. Those houses were large becausethey were very wealthy men.
They would have a walloutside, you go into the wall, and there’s a courtyard
there. In the case ofAnnas, He remained in the courtyard, but now He goes
into the courtyard, and is taken into a large room adjacentto the courtyard.
Out in the courtyard is a fire and some soldiers, verse 58. And Peter, who is
following Him afar off, goes into the high priest’s courtyard and sits down
with the guards to see the end. He wanted to see what was going to happen.

He’s caught betweencowardice andcuriosity. He’s not brave enough to step
out for Christ, but he’s concernedenoughto sort of stand in the wings, and
it’s in that setting that he winds up denying Jesus Christ on three occasions.
So he’s out in the courtyard, and no doubt can look through the doors or
windows into this large room where this is happening to Christ, as He’s
confronted with the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas. The law of Israel saidno one is
to be tried any other place than the Hall of Judgment; it is to be during the
day, it is to be public, it is to be in the Hall of Judgment, which was in the
temple complex. And they, by the way, would go back there early in the
morning, just after daybreak, to do a quick brief retrial and getthe thing
statedin a legalformat during the day, to make it look good. So Jesus goes in
to be confrontedwith the Sanhedrin, and they are going to have to originate
charges. And this violates the law, too, because the Sanhedrin was a jury and
a judge, not a prosecutor. And they couldn’t invent a crime. They couldn’t
invent a prosecution. That was beyond their purview. They were not to
originate charges. Theirlaw said that. They could only investigate charges
that had been brought.
And since the sessionwith Annas failed to bring a charge, they had nothing to
deal with, so they had to become prosecutors. Theyhad to invent a crime and
then try it. The only thing they had was a sentence. Theyhad to make up a
crime to go with it. So everything was illegaland unjust. The time, it was
night: that’s illegal. The place, the house of the high priest: illegal. The
procedure: no crime. The function: prosecutorrather than judge and jury.
The season:they were doing this on a feastday at the feasttime, when no such
thing could take place. The means:the bribery of a traitor named Judas, and
no bribery was tolerated, of course, as we read in the passagein Deuteronomy
16 – and so all the illegalities of the trial before Annas are compounded, in
that convening of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas in his house.
And one other thought that I want to give you today is the illegal, unjust
conspiracy– the illegal, unjust conspiracy. Look just briefly at verse 59.
“Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witnesses
againstJesus to put Him to death.” You know what they wanted to do to
Jesus? Findout the truth. No, they didn’t want to find out the truth. They

wanted to do what? What’s the purpose? Put Him to death. Theywanted to
kill Him. Now, the only way you cankill an innocent man is to have people lie
about him. The only witnesses who could witness againstJesus wouldbe liars,
because He was a perfect person. He was perfect God in human flesh, and
perfection violates nothing. So there was never a crime. He never did
anything wrong, ever, at any time, in any way, shape or form. Therefore, the
only people who could condemn Him would be liars.
So they went out then, in the middle of the night, trying to stir up some liars,
who would come in and do the very thing which their law condemned with
such ferocity. But their passions were so controlledby hatred, and so
dominated by Satanand the demon forces that were behind this activity, and
this was so much within the determinant counselof God that Jesus die for the
sins of the world, that it was as if they were sweptup in an absolute flood.
And here they are doing the very thing that they’ve spent all their life not
doing; trying to save people from the testimony of false witnesses,and now
trying to getfalse witnesses to lie, so they can kill somebody. Unthinkable,
that judges should do this; but they were plotting His death. Now, they had to
have witnesses,becauseit says in Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 17, Deuteronomy
19, you have to have two or three witnesses. So all the chief priests and elders
and council, the whole Sanhedrin went seeking false witnessesagainstJesus
that they might kill Him.
You see, Jesus nevergota fair trial. He was not condemned because of
something He had done. He was condemned because ofhate. And verse 60
says it – underline these words – “but found none” – but found none. Nobody
succeeded. You say, “Didn’t anybody come?” Ohyes, some came, sure.
Verse 60 says, “Thoughmany false witnessescame, yetthey found none.” I
mean, nobody could give a viable testimony. There were some people who
wanted to do it, and I’m sure hell generatedall it could, but nothing that
stuck, nothing that worked, nothing that made sense. And worse than that,
they couldn’t find any two of them to what? To agree. Liars – it’s hard for
liars to agree, since they’re lying. Since there’s no facts to deal with, it’s hard
for them to gettogether. It says in Mark 14:56, “Formany bore false witness
againstHim, but their witness agreednot together.” Theirwitness agreednot

together. They gotthis guy, and this guy, and this guy, and this guy, and
everybody come up with a different lie, and they couldn’t get any continuity.
Well, the frustration mounts until at last two false witnessescame. Here come
two that have gottentogether, and they got their story sort of together. And
they say, “This fellow said,” verse 61, “I am able to destroy the temple of God
and build it in three days.” All they could come up with was “this fellow
said.” That’s remarkable. I mean, it’s a big generalization. This fellow said?
In Mark, the parallel passageagain, 14 verse 57, listento this, “These two
witnesses said, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and within
three days I will build another without hands.’” It’s interesting. The Lord
has given us these two, one of them has a testimony recordedin Matthew, the
other’s testimony is recorded in Mark. Look at the difference. The guy in
Matthew says, “I am able to destroy the temple,” the one in Mark’s record, “I
will destroy the temple.” The guy in Matthew says, “And build it in three
days,” the guy in Mark says, “And within three days I will build another
made without hands.” This is just – doesn’t even agree.
What is interesting is they say Jesus saidthis, and He didn’t say that. In John
2:19, He said, “You destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it,” and
He spoke of the temple of His body. But they’re trying to come up with a lie
about Him saying “I will” or “I am able to destroy the temple.” He never said
that. He said “You destroy this temple, and I’ll build it up.” But they got
together, and twisted and perverted this thing. The problem is the two of
them didn’t agree. Itjust didn’t fly, and the priests knew it; and they
dropped the issue right after this. Now, I want you to listen to something.
These people should never have been admitted as witnesses. As I mentioned
earlier, a witness had to know the year, the month, the day, the hour of the
day, and the locationof the testimony given of what supposed accusationwas
rendered. And there were very strict rules about the limitations of
disagreementwhich would be toleratedbetweenwitnesses. Theywouldn’t
have qualified at all.
Now, I want to draw this to a conclusionwith a very important thought.
Listen: if I didn’t know Jesus Christ was perfect, if I didn’t know Jesus Christ
was absolutelysinless, the Son of God as He claimed, this incident alone would

convince me that He was. I really wouldn’t need anything else. I’ll tell you
why. Hell is running this whole show. Satanhas entered Judas. This is the
hour of the powerof darkness. All the best of hell, the brain trust of hell,
Satanand all his most brilliant, powerful, resourcefuldemons, are after an
accusationagainstJesus. And all of earth’s leaders in that place are also after
an accusationofJesus. Listen: when all earth and all hell, energizedby
supernatural resources and intelligence, and desperatelywanting to find
something againstJesus Christcan’t find anything, that tells me there isn’t
anything to find. Did you get that? This is one of the greatestapologeticsfor
the perfectionof Jesus Christ anywhere in the pages of Scripture. If there was
anything He ever did wrong, they would have found it. If it had to be revealed
by demons, they would have found it. But there was no crime – absolute
perfection. This is God in human flesh, no less – no less. Theycouldn’t find
anything – absolutely nothing.
The illegality of this? These people were bribed witnesses. They
misrepresentedwhat He said. And no one could be executed for what He said
anyway. And especiallyif it was true, and where was His defense? It’s
absolutely illegal, every bit of it. An illegalconfrontation with Annas, an
illegalconvening of the Sanhedrin, and an illegal conspiracyagainstJesus
Christ, and in the midst of it all is all hell and earth and the worst that there is
in the supernatural and the natural world, come together againstJesus
Christ; nobody cancome up with anything – not anything. What a blessed
Savior we have, amen? Perfect – and found to be so at the tribunal of evil
men. You see, the only people on trial this day really were the people who
were accusing Jesus,right? And they show themselves to be wretched,
wicked, sinful, unjust men. Christ will always, by His very presence, mark
those who are of Satan. When you come into confrontationwith Christ, you
will be exposed, and they were that day. At this point, Caiaphas tries to take
charge. And what happens is very dramatic; come back in two weeks andI’ll
tell you about it. Let’s bow in prayer.
Father, as we look at this scene, againa scene in which Jesus Christ could
have suffered such humiliation, in which He could have been seemingly
irremediably castas a loser, He is majestic, He is glorious. He stands as pure,
and perfect, and spotless, andsinless, and holy. And the court that tries Him

is criminal, and wicked, and vile. And, Father, may we be reminded that
there are only two places that you can take in this world; one is to affirm the
majesty and deity and perfectionof Christ, and the other is to stand with
those who deny that. Father, we pray that all who are here, all who hear this
messagewouldstand with those who affirm the perfectionof Jesus Christ.
When all that earth and hell could bring againstHim left Him unstained, we
know He is the perfect, sinless Sonof God, our Savior. And willingly does He
endure this, that He may go to a cross He didn’t deserve, to die for us who
deservedto be on that cross. Thank You for such a gracious Savior. While
your heads are bowedin a closing moment, if you don’t know the Lord Jesus
Christ, if you’ve never receivedHim as Savior, if you’ve not opened your
heart to Him, this is the day, this is the day, now is the time. Don’t stand with
those who rejectChrist. You may not feelin your heart that you would want
to be identified with them, but you are if you refuse Him. If you’ve put Him
to trial in the court of your own heart, and the verdict is that He isn’t who He
claimed to be, and you don’t want Him in your life, you stand with those in
the court that day in Jerusalem. Butopen your heart to Christ.
JOHN MACARTHUR
The Illegal, Unjust Trials of Jesus, Part2
Sermons Matthew 26:62–68 2390 Jan27, 1985
Play Audio
Add to Playlist
A + A - Reset

It is our sacredprivilege eachLord’s Day when we meet togetherto open the
Word of God. This is His very word to us; He speaks, andwe listen with
eagerhearts. The text this morning is Matthew’s gospel, chapter26. We’llbe
looking at verses 57 through 68. What a joy and privilege for these many
years to have gone through this greatpresentation of Christ, the gospelof
Matthew. We’re coming to its climax, to its conclusion. And if ever we have
been attentive, we are attentive now, as we trace our Lord’s steps to the cross,
to the resurrection, to His ascension, andHis commissioning of His own for
the ministry that He left behind. These are great, greattruths coming to us
from the Lord Himself. Now, lasttime we begana look at these verses. We’ll
conclude that look this morning, examining the illegal, unjust trial of Jesus.
You’ll remember that it is Friday morning, just after midnight. Jesus has
celebratedthe Passoverwith His disciples on the Thursday evening, instituted
the Lord’s Table, taught them some profound truth recordedin John 13
through 16, prayed to the Fatherfor them, John 17.
Then, leaving the upper room with the eleven disciples – Judas is already
dismissedto carry out his act of betrayal – Jesus and the eleven proceedto the
Mount of Olives, to a place familiar to them calledthe Garden of Gethsemane.
They arrive at the garden somewhere around midnight, and Jesus enters into
long prayer sessions withthe Father, three of them, in which He does battle
with the tempter. And out of those times of prayer, He comes strengthened
and ready for the cross. Satanhas thrown at Him the last flurry of
temptation. He has become victorious, as always. And He sets His mind
resolutelyto the cross. No time passes afterthe conclusionof that prayer until
the gardenis approachedby upwards of a thousand people, Roman soldiers,
temple police, Jewishleaders, Sanhedrinmembers, including the high priest.
They have all come to arrestJesus. There is no crime, there is no
arraignment, there is no indictment, there is nothing He has done, but they
want Him dead, they want Him out of the way.
He is a threat to their religion. He is a threat to their positions of leadership.
He is a threat to take awaythe hearts and minds of the people to follow after
Him. He is a miracle worker. Theycan’t compete at that level, and they are
fearful. They are also energizedby Satan to carry out this deed, and so all of
the redemptive history that God has laid out is coming to its climax in the

cross and resurrectionof Christ. Now, we know, first of all, that this is a
Satanic hour. Jesus saidto those leaders, “It is your hour and the power of
darkness.” Inother words, He said, “This is hell’s moment to do its deed.”
When Judas left the upper room, before Jesus instituted the Lord’s Table,
John tells us, “Satanhaving entered into Judas, he went out, and it was
night.” It is hell’s hour, and Satanis energizing Judas. No doubt, Satan and
his demons are also energizing the high priest, the Sanhedrin, and all that are
involved in the executionof Jesus Christ.
It is a hellish effort, and I want you to know at this point that this is new for
Satan, because mostof the time prior to this, Satan has been trying to prevent
Christ from going to the cross. Certainlyin the first greatwave of temptation
recordedin Matthew 4 and Luke 4, where right after Jesus was baptized He
was tempted, Satan’s effort there was to divert Him awayfrom the cross. It
may well have been that even in the garden as our Lord was sweating great
drops of blood, agonizing in the midst of that temptation, that Satan was still
trying to getHim to do whateverHe had to do to divert from the cross,
because Satanknew that the cross wouldprovide the ultimate sacrifice forthe
salvationof all the redeemed of all the ages. And so it seemedas though
Satan’s ploy was to keepHim awayfrom the cross. But apparently by now,
he is resigned to the fact that Jesus is going to the cross;that is in the
inevitable plan of God. And so Satan’s effort then is to cause the cross to be
so strong, and the death there so fatal, that Christ cannot rise again. And so
while at first we see Satantrying to divert Christ from the cross, we now see
Satanhimself amassing all of hell and earth together, in terms of evil force, to
kill Him on the cross in such a devastating and final waythat there can be no
resurrection.
This does demonstrate to us, by the way, both the impotence of Satan – he
can’t do what he wants to do – and the inconsistencyof Satan– he changes his
plan quite frequently. He is not consistent, because ultimate evil would be
ultimately inconsistent, and so sometimes it’s hard for us to understand why
he does what he does. But it appears now that he is energizing the betrayal,
he is energizing the death of Christ, in an effort to keep Him dead, to keep
Him fatally wounded, and unable to rise again. And even when He did rise,
breaking through Satan’s bands of death, you remember Satanspread lies

about that He had not risen, trying to stop the messageofthe resurrection, if
not the resurrectionitself. So behind the scene is that one of whom Jesus said,
“He is a murderer from the beginning,” and in John 8, He said to those
leaders who wantedHim dead, “You seek to kill Me because youare of your
father the devil, who is a liar and a murderer from the beginning.” So behind
it all is Satan. So this is a Satanic moment as Jesus moves to the cross.
But let me saysecondly, it is important to understand that it is also a holy
moment; it is also God at work. And here God means for the anger of Satan,
and the hatred of Satan, and the evil of Satan, to fit within His own holy
redemptive purpose, so that we could say it’s like Genesis 50, “Youmeant it
for evil, but Godmeant it for good.” And we must always keepin mind that
whateverlatitudes Satan has in which to operate is always within the confines
of God’s will and purpose. So while we sayit is the moment of Satan, we
remember that Peter saidon the day of Pentecostthat Jesus Christwas
crucified by the determinant counseland foreknowledgeofGod. So it is a
plan that has its origin, in one sense, in hell, but has its genuine source in
heaven.
There’s a third party involved in the arrest and execution of Christ, and that
is evil men. Not only hell and heaven, but evil men, and we find here these evil
rulers who have long ago conspiredto eliminate Jesus Christ; who back in
John 11, just after Lazarus had been raisedfrom the dead, a few weeks before
this very hour, met togetherand said, “This man is a doer of miracles.” They
never denied that. They knew He did miracles. They were undeniable. They
were of proportions that no one could deny, and they were of a frequency that
no one could escape. And so they said, “He does miracles, but if we don’t kill
Him, the Romans are going to come and take awayour place,” and they
meant their temple, “and our nation.” In other words, their thought was that
all the Jews wouldbegin to follow Jesus. And the Romans then, as they saw
the whole populace moving toward Jesus wouldbe worried about a
revolution. And they would reactby coming againstthe Jews, andthey would
dethrone them, take awaytheir position, destroy their temple, wipe out their
nation, and it would be the end of them.

And so they saw this whole movement towardJesus, and the crowdthat had
cried, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” and, “Blessedis He that comes in the
name of the Lord,” when He rode into the city, poseda greatthreat to their
security, because the Romans might see this as an insurrection brewing, move
in to squelch the insurrection, and wipe them out totally. And that’s what
prompted Caiaphas then to rise and say, “You don’t know anything, you
people, I’m telling you this, it is expedient that one man should die for this
nation.” And what he meant was, we better kill this man or we’re going to
lose our whole nation. It would be better for one man to die, rather than the
whole nation. And the text of John 11:53 says he didn’t know what he was
saying, but what he was saying was a prophecy that Jesus wouldin fact die for
His nation. And so, unwittingly and stupidly and out of a mouth of hatred,
came a prophecy of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for the
redemption of His people. But the Jewishleaders saw it as a threat.
Now, listen then: what we’re seeing here is the coming togetherof the plotting
of hell, the coming togetherof the plan of God, and the coming into that
picture of the hatred of evil, Christ-rejecting people of that time. And I want
you to understand this: because it is the plan of God in no way lessens the evil
of hell’s conspiracy, and because it is the plan of Godin no way lessens the evil
of the men who carriedit off on earth. Their evil guilt is not mitigated at all.
It is the plan of God, but it is their will to do it. They have chosento the
compatriots of hell by their own volition, and so there’s no elimination of guilt
because this is God’s plan; it is that God overrules their chosenevil to do His
goodwork. And so we pick the scene up where they have come and taken
Jesus captive in the gardenof Gethsemane, andthey have tied Him up, and it
is a very tragic scene. There is a certain recklessness abouttheir approach.
There’s a certain relentlessness aboutit that’s absolutelyunbelievable. Here
they come to take Jesus Christ, the King of glory, the Son of God, and they
come with a relentlessnessthat’s actually staggering.
What I mean by that is this: Jesus, whenHe came out from the gardento meet
them, appearedbefore them, and at His very appearance, the Bible says the
whole crowd, reaching nearly a thousand, fell down flat on the ground. The
very powerof His presence knockedthem to the ground as if they’d been hit
by a celestialhammer. They went down with a thud. And lying there

prostrate, they were exposedto the powerand judgment of the Son of the
living God. Now, you would have thought that any thinking person is going to
say to himself, “This is not just another man,” and that they would have seen
that miracle of powerand judgment as a messagethat they ought to take a
goodlook at who this was. But it finds absolutelyno response in their hard
hearts, no response in their cold heads. The terrifying powerthat crushed
them to the ground brings about no thought of the reality of the deity of Jesus
Christ or His lordship. They run right pass that warning sign, as clear as it is.
A little later, Petercomes out and slices offthe ear of Malchus, the servant of
the high priest. And in that scene in the garden, Jesus walksup and said,
“That’s enough; let’s stop before we have a battle.” Reachesoutand creates
instantaneouslyan earon that man. Now, there is a miracle not of power and
judgment, but of kindness and mercy. And they see that miracle, and you
would say to yourself, “Certainly the incredible creative powerthat gives an
ear instantaneouslyto someone who has losthis is something to reckonwith;
we better stop and examine who this is.” But they go right pass that signpost
as well. Now, there are only two possible conclusions. One is that they knew
He wasn’t the Messiah. Inspite of all of this, they knew He wasn’t the
Messiah. Butdo you know something? If they had thought that He wasn’t
the Messiah, Ibelieve they would have done some homework to have proven
it. What I believe is they were afraid He was the Messiah, andthey didn’t
want to go through the examination because they were afraid of the
conclusion. Theyjust wanted to getHim out of the way.
You say, “You mean they didn’t even want to know if He was their Messiah?”
That’s the only possible explanation, otherwise why wouldn’t they have put on
a thorough examination and found out if He was the Messiahand been happy
with that? No, they were so lockedinto their ownfalse religion, they were so
lockedin to their own self-righteousness, theywere so lockedinto their own
style of living and worshiping, and their own power, and their ownprestige,
and their own image among the people – they were so threatened by Jesus’
true holiness, and true purity, and true power – that they were afraid to find
out the truth. Becauseif they found out that He was the Messiah, His own
words had damned them. And rather than find out the truth, they wanted

Jesus was tried and convicted illegally

Jesus was tried and convicted illegally

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was tried and convicted illegally

Similar to Jesus was tried and convicted illegally (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was tried and convicted illegally