Truth Magazine

By Harold Tabor

Pilate was the sixth procurator of Judea (Sabinus, Coponius, Ambivus, Rufus, Gratus) who was appointed by Tiberius Caesar. His wife was named Claudia. They normally lived in the Roman headquarters at Caesarea on the coast (Acts 23:35). But, at the time of major feasts, they would have come to Jerusalem and stayed in the Praetorium.

Roman procurators were hardened rulers trained to deal harshly with situations of dissent. Pilate had not always been kind to the nation he ruled. Philo and Josephus tell of at least three occasions where Pilate offended the Jews. He had ordered a garrison of Roman soldiers to carry their standards with the image of Tiberius into the City of Jerusalem by night. He ordered the construction of an aqueduct system from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem using appropriated funds from the Temple treasury called Corban. He insisted on hanging gilt shields dedicated to Tiberius in the halls of Herod’s palace in Jerusalem. 

Roman procurators were tolerate of all religions as long as the Roman symbols of deity were hailed, taxes were paid to Caesar and everyday life was peaceful.

When the sunlight began to shine over the Mount of   Olives (it was early morning, John 18:28), the Roman procurator found himself presented with a serious judicial situation. The Sanhedrin had brought a criminal before him and they were unwilling to enter the palace because of the Feast. The whole multitude, referring to the Sanhedrin (Mark 15:2) which consisted of the Chief Priests (heads of the twenty-four priestly courses), the Scribes or lawyers, and the Elders, were representatives of the people. Thus approximately seventy men were there to bring the accusations against Jesus. The Sanhedrin had the right to pass sentence of death, but did not have the power to execute that sentence (John 18:31; 19:7). That power had been taken from the Sanhedrin when Judea became a Roman province. 

When Pilate asked, “What accusation bring you against this man?”, he was asking for a definite formal charge against this man? The reply was: “If He were not a malefactor” (literally, one doing evil), we would not be here (John 18:30 or a criminal from kakos, “evil” and ergon “work” meaning a evil worker or doer in Luke 23:32, 33, 39, and 2 Tim. 2:9). Pilate was not ready for such a vague charge and replied that they should handle the case according to their own law. Pilate did not want to be involved with their religious disputes. Luke records the specific charges by the chief priests as (1) stirring up or exciting (perverting) the people (nation), (2) prohibition of payment of the tribute-money to Caesar, and (3) the assumption of the title of Christ as “King of the Jews” (Luke 23:2). Pilate knew the first assertion was false. The second charge was a deliberate falsehood (Matt. 22:14-22). Pilate would examine privately Jesus on the nature of his kingdom and “truth.”
 
Entering into the Praetorium (judgment hall or palace), Pilate’s judicial inquiry of Jesus was with the question of treason “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus explains that his kingdom was a spiritual kingdom and not a political kingdom that would threaten the Roman Empire. He did not gather a political army to provoke a rebellion against Rome. His kingdom was based upon spiritual “truth” rather than political “philosophy” or power (John 18:33-37). No defendant can be found guilty on his own testimony.

Pilate responded with the second question, “What is truth?” Pilate returns outside and announces the official acquittal: “I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4; John 18:38). This meant that Pilate found no legal ground for punishment. Since there was no crime against Roman law, the charges should have been dropped.

After Pilate’s attempt to change the circumstances based upon jurisdiction, he calls “the chief priest and rulers and people” together and restates his conclusion. Neither Pilate nor Herod Antipas has found any fault/crime “in this man touching those things whereof you accuse him and nothing worthy of death” (Luke 23:14). Pilate attempts to avoid the judgment of condemnation again by suggesting that he would chastise him and release him (Luke 23:15). Pilate recognized that the Jewish leaders were motivated by envy (Matt.27:18; Mark 15:10) and were persistent in their attempts to condemn Jesus. This was the second acquittal.

The Gospel of John mentions a “custom” at the Feast of releasing a prisoner. The origin of the custom is obscure. Nevertheless, Pilate asked the Jews whether he should release “the King of the Jews” (Mark 15:9; John 18:39) or Barabbas (Matt. 27:17). The chief priest persuaded or stirred up the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas. After the soldiers had put a crown of thorns on the head of Jesus and a purple garment, they came out saying, “Hail, King of the Jews.” Pilate said, “I bring him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him” (John 19:4). This is the third statement of acquittal.

When the chief priest and other officers saw Jesus, they cried out, “Crucify him.” Pilate responded with the question, “What shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ and whom you call the King of the Jews?” And the multitude cried out, “Let him be crucified.”

Pilate’s response is, “Why, what evil has he done?” Luke’s account adds, “I find no cause of death in him” (Luke 23:22; John 19:6). Both Pilate’s wife and Pilate called Jesus a just or innocent man (Matt. 27:19, 24). 

In spite of the fourth statement of acquittal, the Jews insist that there is “a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). The Jews punished criminals by stoning (Lev. 24:16; Deut. 17:7), but the Romans crucified the worst criminals.

Pilate is more fearful when he hears the new charge that “he made himself the Son of God.” Pilate enters the Praetorium the fifth time with Jesus and asks him, “Whence are you?” No self-incriminating statement is forward coming. Jesus does not answer. Pilate responds that he has power to release or crucify Jesus. Then Jesus answers that Pilate would have no power “against me, except it was given from above” (John 19:9-10).  

Pilate goes out to the crowd and seeks to release Jesus. But the crowd has grown more intense by responding, “If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar.” Pilate knew he must not be charged with not being “a friend of Caesar.” When he brings Jesus outside the crowd responds with loud voices and continues with an increasingly tumultuous cry. Pilate consents to the multitude giving sentence that “the King of the Jews” was to be crucified. The multitude had no king but Caesar.    

Pilate had acquitted Jesus four times and then allowed the verdict of a mob to rule.

All of this was a matter of prophecy “that the words of Jesus might be fulfilled.” For if the prophecies of Jesus were to be fulfilled (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32), he must be “lifted up” by crucifixion and not die by stoning. 

htabor@compuserve.com

By Chris Reeves

“The Passion of Christ.“ What a wonderful theme for Truth Magazine! The cross of Christ (along with the events that surround it) is the central theme of the entire Bible. What a pleasure it is for me to be asked to contribute something to this theme. I am thankful for the opportunity to study and re-study the story of Peter’s denial of Christ. I learn new truths each time I dig into the text. But I am also thankful for this assignment because it causes me to examine myself in light of what Peter did. I have been made to review my own character as I ask myself if I am like Peter in anyway. When I see Peter on this occasion I see myself in some ways, and I am reminded of the constant need to remain faithful to Jesus.

The Facts of Peter’s Denial

All four gospel writers record Peter’s denial of Christ. First they record Jesus’ prediction of denial and then they record the shameful act of denial (Matt. 26:31-35, 58, 69-75; Mark 14:27-31, 54, 66-72; Luke 22:31-34, 54-62; John 13:36-38; 18:15-18, 25-27). The basic facts of Peter’s denial are as follows.

Peter’s Denial Anticipated. Sometime after Jesus and his apostles finish the Passover meal, Jesus predicts that all his apostles (and Peter in particular) will fall away.1 He uses the word “offended”2 to describe their act of denial. This word comes from the Greek word skandalizo, meaning “to snare,” and then, “to cause to stumble.” All the apostles would later “stumble” (NKJV) or “fall away” (NASV, NIV) when it came time for them to stand for the Lord. Jesus also quotes Zechariah 13:7 at this time and applies it to himself and his apostles: “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” At this point, Peter speaking from his usual impetuous and impulsive nature,3 makes his promise: “If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.” Jesus then predicts that Peter will not keep his promise: “Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”4 Peter responds: “Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.”5 For the first time in the story of Peter’s denial we are introduced to the word “deny.” This word, used in Jesus’ prediction and Peter’s promise, comes from the Greek word aparneomai, meaning “to deny utterly.” W.E. Vines says this word means, “. . . to affirm that one has no connection with a person” (Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments Words, 2:158). No doubt Peter was sincere when he made his promise, but later he would find out how weak he really was. Soon Peter would deny having any connection whatsoever with Jesus. Peter was the first to promise his loyalty to Jesus and the first to deny Jesus. Before leaving the prediction of Peter’s denial we must include an important fact added by Luke’s gospel. Luke records that Jesus not only predicted Peter’s denial, but that he also prayed for Peter’s conversion. Jesus said, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). Satan was asking that all the disciples would sin (compare Job 1:7; 2:2). Jesus was asking that Peter would be saved. Thanks be to God that Jesus’ prayer was answered as the story of Peter’s life will later show.

Peter’s Denial Accomplished. Some time passes. Peter goes with James and John into the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus to pray and Peter falls asleep. He is also with Jesus at the time of his arrest where he pulls out his sword and cuts off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. Then the story of Peter’s denial picks up again. While Jesus is in the house or court of Caiaphas, the high priest, Peter is seeking anonymity in the crowd nearby. Matthew says, “But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end” (Matt. 26:58).6 It is during Jesus’ trial before this Jewish court, that Peter denies the Lord. First a maid says to him inside the house, “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean.” Peter denies it saying, “I know not what thou sayest.”7 Then someone outside the courtyard on the porch says, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Peter denies it a second time even stronger with an oath saying, “I know not the man.” Finally, after some time passes,8 bystanders (particularly, a kinsman of Malchus, John 18:26) come to Peter and say, “Of a truth thou also art one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known.”9 Peter denies it a third and final time strongly with cursing and swearing, “I know not the man.” Notice that Peter refers to Jesus as “the man.” He wouldn’t even say his name! Clearly Peter wants to disassociate himself from Jesus. Immediately, the cock crows a second time just as Jesus had predicted. At this point in the story, Luke’s gospel supplies us with another important detail. Luke tells us that “the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter” (Luke 22:61). This must have been one of the most difficult expressions to face. The expression that says, “What have you just done? Why did you do this to me?” The expression also says, “I told you so.” Jesus’ look must have broken Peter’s heart. Our story closes with some of the saddest words ever recorded in sacred history, “And he went out and wept bitterly.”

The Lessons from Peter’s Denial

• The Lesson of Stumbling and Denial. When Peter denied the Lord he “stumbled.” He did not heed the admonition of his Master who said, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in me” (Matt. 11:6). When Peter denied the Lord he disassociated himself from Jesus. We have already learned that the word “deny” in our text means “to affirm that one has no connection with a person.” Peter did not deny that Jesus existed, he denied that he had any relationship with Jesus. Not all denial is wrong. For example, to be a true disciple we must deny self (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). But we must never deny Jesus. This is sinful. We may deny Jesus in a number of ways. We may forsake the assembly of the saints and the Lord’s supper. We may cease to preach the doctrine of Christ (or at least not mention it) when contemporary, controversial issues come up. We may regularly attend a local church but sow discord among the brethren. We may give into peer pressure and go along with the crowd into sin. We may see the need to become a Christian but never do it. Whatever the case may be, whenever we deny Jesus in this life, be prepared for Jesus to deny us in the judgment day (Luke 12:9). Let us all go out and boldly confess to the world that we are Jesus’ disciples (Matt. 10:32-33).
• The Lesson of Intercessory Prayer. Jesus prayed especially for Peter that his faith would not utterly fail. His prayer was heard (cf. John 11:42) and Peter did not fall away completely. Peter, no doubt was thankful later that Jesus had prayed for him. Because temptation is great and all around us, we need to pray for our brethren, and we need our brethren to pray for us. We must remember the power of prayer and the need for supplications (Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:1; Heb. 5:7).
• The Lesson of the Downward Spiral to Apostasy. What was Peter’s problem on the night he denied Jesus? Let us examine Peter’s downward steps to apostasy. He was proud, boastful, over-confident and self-assured (Matt. 26:31-35; compare Ps.118:8; Prov. 16:18; 1 Cor. 10:12). He was spiritually lazy; he did not watch and pray (Matt. 26:36-46; compare Eph. 5:15; 1 Thess. 5:1-8; Heb. 2:1-3). He was zealous for the wrong cause — a physical fight (Matt. 26:47-56; compare 2 Cor. 10:4-5; Eph. 6:10-13). He was cowardly and did not follow Jesus closely, but “afar off” (Matt. 26:58; compare Mark 8:38; Rev. 21:8). He put himself in the midst of worldliness by the fireside of the enemy (Matt. 26:69; compare Ps. 1:1; Prov. 6:27-29; 1 Cor. 15:33; Jas. 4:4). Finally, he denied the Lord (Matt. 26:69-75; compare Matt. 10:32-33). No wonder Peter ended up in sin! Peter took the slow, easy and gradual path to apostasy. 
• When we get close to sin, the opportunity to sin is greater. Therefore, let us “flee” sin (1 Cor. 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22), not see how close we can get to it. When we “flee” from sin, the Devil will “flee” from us (Jas. 4:7). Peter learned his lesson, and later in life he wrote two epistles encouraging Christians to remain faithful to the Lord. In those epistles he encouraged humility, not pride (1 Pet. 5:5-6); diligence, not laziness (1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:5, 10; 3:14, 17-18); courage, not cowardice (1 Pet . 4:16); abstinence, not worldliness (1 Pet. 2:1-2, 11-12); and defense, not denial (1 Pet. 3:15). Peter knew firsthand the reality and dangers of apostasy and tried his best to discourage others from following his example (2 Pet. 2:20-22).
• The Lesson of the Ease of Sin. On the night Peter denied Jesus, he found it easy to move from one sin to another. First, Peter denied being with Jesus, then he denied even knowing Jesus and finally he ended up cursing and swearing. Peter went from a simple denial, to a violent denial, to an open, profane denial. Peter went from bad to worse, and such is the case with many sins. B.W. Johnson’s comments are insightful: “The gradations of guilt in the denials of Peter: (1) Ambiguous evasion; (2) distinct denial with a false oath; (3) awful adjuration with solemn imprecations on himself” (The People’s New Testament, 150). Beware, the Devil often makes it easy for you to sin once and then continue on into more and more sin (2 Tim. 3:13).10
• The Lesson of Rebounding from Sin. Thanks be to God that Peter did not remain in sin. Let us now examine Peter’s upward steps to restoration. First, he remembered the words of Jesus and then he wept bitterly. Peter did not try to cover up his sin, but he recognized it, took responsibility for it and repented. But he did not stop there. Peter moved on. Unlike Judas (Matt. 27:5), Peter had genuine remorse and repentance which lead him to do great things for the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 7:10). After this dark denial was committed, we find Peter running to the tomb in Jerusalem (John 20:1-6) and speaking with Jesus about love and service in Galilee (John 21:15-23; 1 Cor. 15:5). We find Peter associating with the Twelve in Jerusalem (Acts 1:15-26), standing and preaching a beautiful sermon on Pentecost in the Temple, performing miracles in the Temple and speaking boldly in the Temple (Acts 2:14-5:29). We find Peter doing his part to fulfill the Great Commission in Samaria (Acts 8:14-25; 9:32-40; 10:1ff; 11:1ff; 15:7-11; Gal. 2:7-8). He is even imprisoned for the cause of Christ by Herod in Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-19). Finally, Peter writes two epistles of encouragement (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). Yes, we are told that Peter sinned on one other occasion (Gal. 2:11-14). But even then he did not remain in sin. He rebounded once again. Have you heard “the cock crow” in your life? Have you denied Jesus? You don’t have to remain an apostate, you can be converted and come back to the Lord! Don’t quit! Don’t give up!

Peter was not a likely candidate to commit the act of denial. He was distinguished for the great confessions he made and the great deeds that he did during the Lord’s ministry. And yet, Peter is the very one who denies Jesus; not once, but three times. The tragic incident in the life of Peter that we have studied reminds me of the words David used as he lamented the death of Saul and Jonathan. David exclaimed three times, “How are the mighty fallen!” (2 Sam. 1:19, 25, 27). Indeed, the mighty fall and great workers in God’s kingdom today can fall if they are not careful. Let us all learn the lessons from Peter’s denial of Christ. May we never deny Jesus, but continue to confess our allegiance to Jesus Christ throughout our life.

Notes

1. After comparing all four accounts, Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry suggest two separate predictions by Jesus: one in the upper room, and one at the mount of Olives (The NIV Harmony of the Gospels, 202, footnote b).
2. All Scripture quotations in this article are taken from the American Standard Version (1901) unless otherwise indicated.
3. See Matt. 14:28-31; 16:21-23; 17:4-5 for examples of Peter’s impulsive character.
4. The cock actually crowed “twice” according to Mark 14:30, 72.
5. Mark tells us that Peter said these words “exceeding vehemently” (Mark 14:31); that is, insistently and emphatically. Matthew and Mark tell us that all the disciples made the same basic promise (Matt. 26:35b; Mark 14:31b). Yet, how sad it is to learn that they all ran away (Mark 14:50-51).
6. John’s gospel tells us that Peter was invited into the court of the high priest by “the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest” (John 18:15-16). The unnamed “disciple” is probably John who speaks of himself impersonally (see John 19:26-27; 20:2-4, 8; 21:7, 20, 23-24). Peter “was beneath in the court” (Mark 14:66). He probably stood in an open courtyard surrounded by a building.
7. At this point the cock crows for the first time (Mark 14:68). J.W. McGarvey suggests that the first cock-crowing was around midnight, and the second cock-crowing was around 3 a.m. (The Fourfold Gospel, 656). See Mark 13:35.
8. Luke says, “And after the space of about one hour” (Luke 22:59).
9. Peter was detected by his Galilean accent. Craig S. Keener comments: “Galilean accents differed from Judean accents; Galileans were careless with their vowels and failed to clearly differentiate the various guttural consonants” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 124), and again, “Regional accents were difficult to hide (cf. Judg. 12:6)” (Ibid., 252).
10. Commentators point out that one question asked of Peter was formed in the negative in the original Greek making it easy for Peter to answer in the negative; something like, “You are not one of his disciples are you?” (John 18:17, 25). How convenient the Devil makes it to sin sometimes!

chrisreeves@juno.com

By Tom Hamilton

Upon his arrest, Jesus was taken to the house of the high priest, where the legal proceedings were begun that resulted in his death. In this article, we will cover the Jewish part of these legal proceedings by considering (1) the record of what happened, (2) the principles violated by the proceedings, and (3) the significance of these events.

The Record of the Trial

When we piece together the events recorded in the four different gospel accounts, we get an overall picture of what happened at Jesus’ trial. In my opinion, the best historical reconstruction reveals that there were no less than six separate trials Jesus endured immediately prior to his execution.

1. First, there is an informal examination by the de facto high priest Annas (John 18:12-14, 19-23). As the real power behind the scenes in Jewish politics, this is the first person Jesus is taken to by those who arrested him, and Annas apparently begins questioning Jesus immediately. The questions, focusing on Jesus’ disciples and teaching, may have been intended to analyze Jesus as a political threat, comparable to innumerable other self-proclaimed messiahs of the times (e.g., what is Jesus’ power base? what activities do they have planned?). Of course, Jesus has done nothing wrong, nor has any charge been made, and he challenges the authorities to produce witnesses, resulting in the first of many blows to come. Apparently, Annas’ interrogation took place while the other members of the Sanhedrin were hurriedly being summoned in the middle of the night, and when the whole council was assembled, Jesus was sent for further, more formal questioning there.

2. The second stage of Jesus’ trial is presided over by the titular high priest Caiaphas, Annas’ son-in-law, in the presence of the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54, 63-65). The Sanhedrin was hastily assembled at Caiaphas’ house, which is probably the same palace complex in which Caiaphas’ father-in-law Annas lived and had conducted the preliminary interrogation of Jesus. At this proceeding, the authorities found themselves in the unenviable position of having a defendant without a legal accusation or charge. While the normal purpose of the council would have been to consider the charges and weigh the evidence, it was forced by the circumstances into the position of justifying its assembly by soliciting testimony and inventing a charge, all in the middle of the night. Even then, the false witnesses could not agree on their misrepresentations of Jesus’ teaching, and no charge could be manufactured to stick. Finally, Jesus is adjured or compelled by the authorities to answer whether he is the Christ, and it is his admission to this question that results in an impulsive indictment of blasphemy. The accompanying physical abuse and mockery indicate just how rational were the deliberations of those who presumed to sit in judgment of Jesus.

3. The third stage of Jesus’ legal proceedings was the formal decision of the Sanhedrin, which was rendered at dawn and which resulted in Jesus being sent to Pilate (Matt. 27:1-2; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66-23:1). The record indicates that the primary charge finally decided upon by the Sanhedrin was blasphemy, based solely upon Jesus’ own statements. The sentence pronounced was death, but because the council was powerless to impose the death penalty, they needed to send Jesus to Pilate for execution.

4. The fourth stage of Jesus’ trial was Jesus’ first appearance before Pilate (Matt. 27:11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-6; John 18:28-38a). At this point, the Jewish authorities were once again compelled to fabricate a charge against Jesus, but this time it had to be an indictment that would be valid in a Roman court of law. Therefore, the accusations brought before Pilate bear no resemblance to the blasphemy charge, but are distortions of Jesus’ teachings in order to misrepresent Jesus as a political and military threat to Rome.

5. Upon discovering that Jesus was from the region of Galilee, Pilate attempted to rid himself of the problem of Jesus by sending Jesus to Herod Antipas under the pretense that Galilee fell under Herod’s jurisdiction (Luke 23:6-12). Jesus refused to dignify the accusations against him and silently endured the additional mockery that was dispensed. All this interrogation seemed to accomplish was the establishing of a friendly rapport between Herod and Pilate.

6. Finally, Jesus is returned to Pilate, and at this sixth and last stage of the legal proceedings, Pilate bows to the mob and condemns Jesus to death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:15-31; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23: 13-25; John 18:38b-19:16).

The Errors of the Trial

One of the most intriguing aspects of the trial of Jesus is the degree to which the Jewish authorities violated their own legal principles and procedures in their rush to condemn Jesus. While it is clear that some basic requirements of justice and fairness were completely ignored, we should be careful not to commit the same errors of judgment ourselves in unfairly condemning Jesus’ judges!

The records of Judaism, including the detailed legal principles and procedures which governed Jewish trials, only date back to A.D. 200, a couple of centuries after the time of Christ. While it is commonly assumed that these legal principles held precedence long before they were written down and would have applied in Jesus’ day, we cannot know for certain if this is true for every legal rule. In addition, because it was the Pharisaic form of Judaism which survived the fall of Jerusalem and came to be written down in A.D. 200, there is the additional consideration of how many of these Pharisaic principles might have applied in a time when the Sadducees were in control, as they were in Jesus’ day. Finally, due to the brevity of the gospel record, there is sometimes the question of whether a particular action qualified as a trial (e.g., was Annas’ interrogation of Jesus just an informal chat or an official legal proceeding?). However, there are still more than enough serious violations of Jewish legal requirements in Jesus’ trial.

Jewish law provided that no trials were to be conducted at night, and yet Jesus was twice subjected to nighttime legal interrogations. The fact that the Sanhedrin held a special dawn meeting to pass the official sentence (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; John 18:28) suggests how these legalists justified their illegal behavior and rationalized that their earlier behavior was not bound by any such rules.

They were also apparently not bound by the rules prohibiting (1) the admission of conflicting testimony, (2) the use of false witnesses, (3) the interviewing of witnesses in one another’s presence, or (4) the acceptance of a charge without a plurality of corroborating witnesses (even if one of the witnesses was the defendant himself). Caiaphas’ statement that no further witnesses were necessary (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63; Luke 22:71) is an obvious effort to bypass the required legal procedures, including the requirement that witnesses appear on behalf of the accused, which was never done.

Perhaps the most egregious violations involved the Sanhedrin’s very purpose for meeting. Instead of assembling to consider the merits of an accusation, the judges assumed the role of accuser and began fabricating a charge to justify Jesus’ arrest. When one charge wouldn’t work, they would simply try another, and finally invented an altogether new charge for Pilate’s consideration. No charge ever even came close to having collaborative testimony. The requirement of justice is to begin with every effort made to disprove any charge brought before the Sanhedrin, but in the case of Jesus, just the opposite was done — every plausible effort was made to incriminate him.

Finally, several minor principles also appear to have been ignored, such as the requirement that no single judge preside at any legal proceeding, no capital case be tried in a single day or on the day before the Sabbath, or no sentence be pronounced before the morning sacrifice.

The Significance of the Trial

While it is helpful to enumerate the many legal principles violated by Jesus’ judges, we should remember, of course, that this was not the focus of the gospel writers. They do not provide an exhaustive catalog of trial errors or argue legal technicalities. They are content to provide enough information that any honest reader, regardless of what legal system he was familiar with, could recognize the injustices done at Jesus’ trials.

In the case of the majority of the trial errors indicated by the gospel record, it is irrelevant whether the principles that were violated existed in codified form in Jesus’ day or were only developed at a later time. After all, these legal precedents were largely just simple applications of common sense and justice, governed by the universal principles of right and wrong, as opposed to subtle legal niceties and technicalities. It is the basic principle of justice with which the gospel writers are ultimately concerned, and which is ultimately violated by Jesus’ judges.

We should avoid the one extreme of finding legal errors under every rock and behind every tree, because there are legitimate questions regarding what principles of Jewish law may have applied in Jesus’ day and which actions qualified as violations. After all, some of the supposed violations are based upon legal technicalities and legal quibbling.

On the other hand, we should not go to the other extreme as modern, liberal scholarship has done, denying that we can conclude any legal errors were committed. This approach is nothing other than political correctness to absolve the Jews of any complicity in Jesus’ death — some even going so far as to argue that the Sanhedrin actually tried to save Jesus from the Romans! The indisputable fact remains that the Romans executed Jesus, but would have had absolutely no reason to do so apart from the agitation of the Jewish leaders.

But such efforts to point the finger of blame are ill-conceived and miss the real significance of Jesus’ trial — that no sinful man is fit to sit in judgment of Jesus and we are all responsible for the death of Jesus.

301 N. Calvert Ave., Muncie, Indiana 47303 thhamilton@home.com 

By Walton Weaver

Most of the time when Luke 23:34, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” is used, only the first part of Jesus’ prayer, “Father forgive them,” is discussed. But is not the last part also important? The words, “for they know not what they do,” show how unaware those who crucified our Lord were of the magnitude of their crime. They were totally ignorant of what they were doing.

We might be surprised just how much the Bible has to say about the ignorance of those who crucified Jesus. What did those who crucified Jesus not know about this horrendous act which they committed? Consider the following. They did not know:

That They Were Fulfilling Prophecy

We may safely assume, it seems to me, that the Jews at least should have known, but they did not. Though they were accustomed to searching the Scriptures, there were many things in them that they had failed to understand. Jesus challenged them on one occasion to search the Scriptures because they testified concerning him (John 5:39). After his death and resurrection he also said that both his resurrection and the very things that had been done in persecuting him and putting him to death were a fulfillment of the Scriptures (Luke 24:46).

What Scriptures would Jesus have had in mind? We know as a matter of fact that Psalm 22 was one part of the Scriptures Jesus recalled and applied to his own sufferings and death: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (v. 1); “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him” (v. 8); “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture” (v. 18). Consider also Psalm 69:21, which states, “. . . in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,” and Psalm 2:2, “the kings of the earth set themselves,  and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” Isaiah 50:6 also describes suffering and humiliation like that which Jesus experienced, when it says, “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Isaiah 63:3 depicts his loneliness as he had been forsaken by all to suffer and die alone: “I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me.” And who does not remember Psalm 34:20 which says, “He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken”? Isaiah 53:3-8, 12, you will recall, gives a detailed account of the suffering, trial and crucifixion, and Zechariah 12:10 declared, “. . . they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.”

That They Were Crucifying the Lord of Glory

Of those who put Jesus to death the apostle Paul said,   “. . . had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). In this passage he identifies those who crucified Jesus as “the rulers” or “princes” (KJV) of this world (age). Paul may be thinking of the pagan rulers, or Romans, here, meaning Pilate and other Roman officials who were involved. We know, of course, that both Jewish and Roman leaders were guilty of crucifying Jesus. On the day of Pentecost Peter declared, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). He puts the blame for Jesus’ death by crucifixion on the backs of the Jews in this statement. The Jews had turned Jesus over to the Romans that they might crucify him, so they were also guilty of the same crime. Earlier in this same sermon Peter shows that it was the Jews (through they did it by turning him over to the Romans courts) who crucified him: “Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” (Acts 2:23, NKJV). Yet, like it was with the Romans, what the Jews did here, they also did in ignorance. 

In Peter’s second recorded sermon in Acts, he says, “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17; see also Acts 5:30, 31; 7:52; 10:39). All alike were guilty: the Roman rulers, the rulers of the Jews, and all others who cried out, “let him be crucified.” But they all alike also did what they did “in ignorance.” Neither the Romans nor the Jews knew they were crucifying “the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8), nor did they know him to be “Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31), or “the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47). Had they known these kinds of things about him, Paul says they would not have crucified him. As the God-man he was their only hope (John 3:16, 17; Acts 4:12), God’s “unspeakable gift” (2 Cor. 9:15), but they did not know it.

That They Were Being Used of Satan

The devil was the one behind the whole scheme:  “. . . the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him . . .” (John 13:2). John 13:17 says, “And after the sop Satan entered into him (Judas).” The devil used Judas to betray Jesus “into the hands of sinners” (Matt. 26:45; Mark 14:41). Just as their fathers persecuted the prophets and “slew the ones which showed the coming of the Just One (Jesus),” so now, Stephen charges as they stone him to death, they had become the betrayers and murderers of Jesus (Acts 7:52). But the one behind it all was the devil. He put it into the heart for Judas to betray him, and he put it into the heart of the chief priest to find him guilty of blasphemy, and Pilate to condemn him.

But in reality, Jesus’ death would prove to be a defeat for Satan. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). The contrast between the wound on the heel of Jesus and the head of the serpent is striking. That it would be a strike to the head of the serpent means that it would be a mortal wound inflicted by the very one who was only slightly wounded himself (“on the heel”). No doubt both Satan and those being used by him would think that Christ’s death on the cross would be the end, or final defeat, of Christ and his cause, but God had planned all along that it would be the very means by which Satan himself would be defeated and finally destroyed.  Look, for example, at Hebrews 2:14: “. . . that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil,” and 1 John 3:8: “. . . the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” 

That They Were Fulfilling God’s Divine Plan

Isaiah had announced many centuries before that “it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin. . . .” (Isa. 53:10). Those who crucified Jesus were carrying out God’s divine plan without knowing it. In a verse we quoted earlier, Peter said to his audience on Pentecost that the Jesus whom they had “taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain,” had been “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). This would not, however, excuse Judas who would betray him, according to Jesus’ own pronouncement: “And truly the son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed” (Luke 22:22, NKJV). Jesus told Pilate, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above . . .” (John 19:11).

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032 wpweaver@arkansas.net