The Adventure Link
CSI:Jerusalem
Cruel and Unusual
The investigation into the Murder of Jesus continues...we spent the end of last week looking at the false court and all of the flaws in the trial process of Jesus. It is not even close to being over yet. Lets continue our investigation now...
Finally having accomplished the evil goal they had so long sought, the members of the Sanhedrin began to vent their satanic hatred of Jesus openly. “They spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, saying, “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?” (Matthew 26:67–68). According to Luke, they blindfolded Him before striking Him and ordering Him to prophesy about who hit Him. Luke adds that there were “many other things they blasphemously spoke against Him” (Luke 22:65). Ironically, blasphemy was the very crime they had accused Him of, but they themselves were the ones who were guilty of it.
Christ bore all such abuse with a quiet and majestic grace that is quite remarkable. As always, “when He was reviled, [He] did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Peter 2:23). He would soon be bearing others’ sins; meanwhile He also patiently suffered their hateful abuse.
Isaiah’s prophecy, written at least seven hundred years earlier, perfectly described this moment. “He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him” (Isaiah 53:3). Isaiah thus prophetically foretold the whole world’s sinful apathy toward Jesus Christ.
No one came to His defense.
No one spoke in His favor.
He was left to bear His affliction all alone.
And so Christ was unjustly condemned to die. His trial before the Sanhedrin had gone exactly according to Caiaphas’s evil plan. At the same time, the plan of God was right on schedule as well.
When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.—Matthew 27:1
The Sanhedrin had already agreed on a guilty verdict, and the sentence of death had also been passed. The only remaining problems they had to face were how to legitimize the trial, and how best to implement the penalty.
The Sanhedrin needed a careful strategy for pursuing their case against Jesus. A few years prior to this, Rome had rescinded the Jewish leaders’ right to carry out the death penalty on their own All capital punishment had to be approved and implemented by Roman authorities. The only exception was if a Gentile defiled the temple by traversing beyond the court of the Gentiles, he could be stoned on the spot. Sometimes overzealous Jews would also stone people caught in the act of a capital crime. (The men in John 8:3–11, for example, wanted to stone the woman they had caught in the act of adultery.) The history of that era reveals that sometimes for the sake of political expediency Rome would turn a blind eye to such stonings—especially when they were carried out by people at the grass roots level But such tolerance would not have been extended to official verdicts rendered by the Sanhedrin. As the only Jewish court recognized and authorized by Rome, they were expected to abide by Roman policies limiting their power.
Furthermore, the authority of the Sanhedrin was confined to religious matters, and therefore relatively few of the cases they heard involved capital crimes. In extreme cases they might be able to gain Roman approval for enacting the death penalty against a particularly unruly blasphemer. But obviously the Romans (who were committed to their own mythical brand of polytheism) were not eager to incite Jewish enthusiasm for having heretics put to death.
If the Sanhedrin intended to ask Rome to execute the death penalty against Jesus, they would have to present the case against Him in a compelling way. The believability of their case against Jesus was severely compromised by the way the trial had been conducted so quickly and under cover of darkness. That may be why during the early hours of the morning (probably around 3:00 or 4:00 a.m.), the council decided to adjourn until later that morning. No doubt all were exhausted anyway. The recess would give council members time for a couple of hours’ sleep, and the court could be officially reconvened in the daylight hours to render a formal verdict, in keeping with the required procedure for such cases. This way if anyone questioned the justice of the way the Sanhedrin had tried Christ, they could claim that their final verdict had been reached in full daylight.
They wasted no time.
Luke reports that the Sanhedrin reconvened their council and brought Jesus in for their final hearing of His case “as soon as it was day” (Luke 22:66). Matthew describes the same meeting: “When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death” (Matthew 27:1).
Christ had been kept under guard all night, possibly in a dungeon at Caiaphas’s house. At the site in Jerusalem traditionally believed to be the location of Caiaphas’s house, there is a small, ancient stone dungeon with an opening just large enough for one person to be lowered into the dungeon. After His trial ended, Christ may have been confined in such a prison for the remainder of the night, or He may have been held in a room in Caiaphas’s house under armed guard. In either case, when morning came, He was bound again (His hands tied tightly behind His back in the customary manner of binding a criminal) and brought once more before the Sanhedrin, so that they could make their verdict official, and determine how to implement their sentence of death against Him.
The council subjected Christ once more to the same line of questioning Caiaphas had used the night before. Luke describes the hearing:
As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him into their council, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe. And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go. Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.” Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.” And they said, “What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (Luke 22:66–71)
They wanted Jesus to state plainly whether He was the Messiah. Having solicited many witnesses against Him, they were nonetheless unable to prove that He had ever publicly declared (in so many words) that He was the Christ.
Indeed He was the Christ, but this was not a claim He overtly made for Himself in public settings. That is why when Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:16–17). And then He commanded the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah (v. 20).
People who heard Jesus teach had varying opinions about who He was. He asked the disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” The reply shows what a diverse array of opinions were being set forth about His true identity: “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (vv. 13–14).
There was such a wide difference of opinion about who He was because He had never explicitly stated in His public teaching that He was the Messiah. He had implied that He was fulfilling prophecies that referred to the Messiah (Luke 4:18–21). He had privately told individuals that He was the Messiah (John 4:25–26). He had said the Old Testament Scriptures pointed to Him (John 5:39). It was certainly well known that His closest followers believed He was the Messiah. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem less than a week before His arrest revealed how widespread that belief was. But the Sanhedrin was determined to have Him state from His own lips for the record whether He claimed to be the Messiah.
Jesus’ reply exposed the council’s prejudice.
If He claimed to be the Messiah, they would not believe the claim, nor would they give any serious consideration to any proofs He might bring forth. They had already seen and heard about many of the amazing proofs of His divine power. In fact, one of His greatest miracles—the raising of Lazarus—was what finally sealed their determination to kill Him (John 11:53).
Furthermore, as He pointed out, He had already questioned them about His Messianic credentials, and they had refused to answer (Luke 20:3–7, 41–44). If they could not answer the evidence that showed He was the Messiah, they ought to let Him go. But it was quite clear that they had no intention of doing either.
Jesus was being railroaded; this was no legitimate trial.
But even though they did not now believe His claims, He solemnly assured them that the time would come when the Son of Man would sit on the right hand of the power of God. He was implying that the tables would one day be turned and He would sit in judgment of them.
His reply didn’t quite give them what they wanted, however, so they pressed further: “Are You then the Son of God?” This time He replied simply, “You rightly say that I am” (Luke 22:70).
That was just what they wanted. Now they had Him on record, in broad daylight, claiming to be the Son of God. As He had just pointed out, whether that claim was true or not made no difference whatsoever to them. Though He had given ample evidence throughout His ministry to substantiate the claim—although some of these men had even seen that evidence with their own eyes—they were not the least bit interested in either establishing or disproving the validity of His claim; all they wanted to do now was get Him on the cross as quickly as possible. In the end, it meant they crucified Him for telling the truth.
As soon as Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the trial was immediately brought to a close. “What further testimony do we need?” (v. 71).
As had happened the night before, He was offered no opportunity to call witnesses in His defense. None of the evidence establishing the veracity of His claim was permitted. Evidence was irrelevant as far as these men were concerned. They had actually reached their guilty verdict beforehand. Christ’s testimony gave them the appearance of legitimacy they needed. As far as they were concerned, all “further testimony” would be superfluous and counterproductive. They now were eager to move ahead with the execution of their sentence.
The decision was made immediately to take Jesus to Pontius Pilate to get Roman permission to have Him put to death—preferably by Roman executioners. “They led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor” (Matthew 27:2).
The plot continues to unfold and the murder of Jesus is closer now than ever.
The adventure and the investigation continues...
