Jesus Examined and Maltreated before Caiaphas

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; The vile and demeaning indignities heaped upon the Son of God this night were planned in the courts of hell and executed by human demons who had surrendered their wills to Satan. Betrayed with a traitor's kiss, arrested and bound by an armed mob, he was taken first before Annas, a former high priest who dominated Caiaphas and the Jewish political scene. There can be no claim of legality or justice in arraigning Christ as it were before a private citizen; the act, designed to create inquisatorial opportunities, merely gratified the pride and dramatized the power of that evil conspirator.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas, the official high priest, with whom were assembled the chief priests, elders, and scribes. Annas himself was probably present also, and included in the mob-type group were enough at least of the Sanhedrin to form a quorum. Through long hours they questioned, smote, and spit upon their King. How much of this inquisition was part of the formal trial before the Sanhedrin is not clear. But when the morning came that body of Jewish jurists took formal action against Jesus and sent him to Pilate to have their death decree ratified.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; Many volumes have been written about the illegalities of the trial of Jesus. In The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's Standpoint by Walter M. Chandler this conclusion is reached: "The pages of human history present no stronger case of judicial murder than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, for the simple reason that all forms of law were outraged and trampled under foot in the proceedings instituted against him." Chandler's Brief lists the following illegalities:

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 1: The Arrest of Jesus was illegal, since it was effected by night, and through the treachery of Judas, an accomplice, both of which features were expressly forbidden in the Jewish law of that day.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 2: The private examination of Jesus before Annas or Caiaphas was illegal; for (1) it was made by night; (2) the hearing of any cause by a 'sole judge' was expressly forbidden; (3) as quoted from Salvador, 'A principle perpetually reproduced in the Hebrew scriptures relates to the two conditions of publicity and liberty.'

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 3: The indictment against Jesus was, in form, illegal. 'The entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic code rests upon four rules: certainty in the indictment; publicity in the discussion; full freedom granted to the accused; and assurance against all dangers or errors of testimony'—Salvador, p. 365. 'The Sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges; it only investigated those brought before it.'—Edersheim, vol. 1, p. 309. 'The evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the charge. There was no other charge; no more formal indictment. Until they spoke and spoke in the public assembly, the prisoner was scarcely an accused man.'—Innes, p. 41. 'The only prosecutors known to Talmudic criminal jurisprudence are the witnesses to the crime. Their duty is to bring the matter to the cognizance of the court, and to bear witness against the criminal. In capital cases they are the legal executioners also. Of an official accuser or prosecutor there is nowhere any trace in the laws of the ancient Hebrews.'—Mendelsohn, p. 110.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 4: 'The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because they were conducted at night. 'Let a capital offense be tried during the day, but suspend it at night.'—Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1. 'Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during daytime only, by the Lesser Sanhedrins from the close of the morning service till noon, and by the Great Sanhedrin till evening.'—Mendelsohn, p. 112.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 5: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because the court convened before the offering of the morning sacrifice. 'The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice.'—Talmud, Jer. San. 1:19. 'No session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice.'—MM. Lemann, p. 109. 'Since the morning sacrifice was offered at the dawn of day, it was hardly possible for the Sanhedrin to assemble until the hour after that time.'—Mishna, Tamid, ch. 3.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 6: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal because they were conducted on the day preceding a Jewish Sabbath; also on the first day of unleavened bread and the eve of the Passover. 'They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath nor on that of any festival.'—Mishna, San. 4:1. 'No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessions on the Sabbath or any of the seven Biblical holidays. In cases of capital crime, no trial could be commenced on Friday or the day previous to any holiday, because it was not lawful either to adjourn such cases longer than over night, or to continue them on the Sabbath or holiday.'—Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus,' p. 67.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 7: The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was concluded within one day. 'A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day.'—Mishna, San. 4:1.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 8: The sentence of condemnation pronounced against Jesus by the Sanhedrin was illegal because it was founded upon His uncorroborated confession. 'We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses.'—Maimonides, 4:2. 'Not only is self-condemnation never extorted from the defendant by means of torture, but no attempt is ever made to lead him on to self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confession on his part is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competent to convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely corroborate his self-accusation.'—Mendelsohn, p. 133.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 9: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of the Sanhedrin was unanimous. 'A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal.'—Mendelsohn, p. 141. 'If none of the judges defend the culprit, i. e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed.'—Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus,' p. 74.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 10: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal in that: (1) The sentence of condemnation was pronounced in a place forbidden by law; (2) The high priest rent his clothes; (3) The balloting was irregular. 'After leaving the hall Gazith no sentence of death can be passed upon any one soever.'—Talmud, Bab. 'Of Idolatry' 1:8. 'A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place.'—Maimonides, 14. See further Levit. 21:10; compare 10:6. 'Let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn.'—Mishna, San. 15:5. 'The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a semicircle, at the extremity of which a secretary was placed, whose business it was to record the votes. One of these secretaries recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other those against him.'—Mishna, San. 4:3. 'In ordinary cases the judges voted according to seniority, the oldest commencing; in a capital case the reverse order was followed.'—Benny, p. 73.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 11: The members of the Great Sanhedrin were legally disqualified to try Jesus. 'Nor must there be on the judicial bench either a relation or a particular friend, or an enemy of either the accused or of the accuser.'—Mendelsohn, p. 108. 'Nor under any circumstances was a man known to be at enmity with the accused person permitted to occupy a position among the judges.'—Benny, p. 37.

John 18:24; Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68; "Point 12: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the merits of the defense were not considered. 'Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently.' Deuteronomy 13:14. 'The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience.'—Mishna, San. 4:5. 'The primary object of the Hebrew judicial system was to render the conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the ingenuity of the Jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this end.'—Benny, p. 56." (Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's Standpoint, Vol. 1, The Hebrew Trial, quoted, Talmage, pp. 645-648.)

Mark 14:54. Palace of the high priest] A central court or quadrangle around which the house was built and in which, on this night, a fire was burning, perhaps in a brazier.

Matthew 26:59. All the council] Either all who were available or enough to form a quorum, as Nicodemus, for one, probably was absent. The Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-two men, with twenty-three forming a quorum.

Matthew 26:59; Sought for false witnesses] What kind of impartial justice might a prisoner expect if the Supreme Court left its chambers, joined an armed mob in the dark of night, and sought openly and frankly for false witnesses who would accept bribes and commit perjury?

Matthew 26:59-61; 59-61. The nearest even false witnesses could come to testifying against Jesus was to hark back some three and a half years to his statement: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19.) That the chief priests and scribes knew be meant the temple of his body and not "the temple of God," as the false witnesses testified, is evident from their own subsequent statement to Pilate about Jesus rising again the third day. (Matthew 27:62-66.) Thus, despite all their search for at least two liars and perjurers who would agree on some one point, they found none; their verdict of guilty was to be left without even a false witness to support it.

Matthew 26:62; 62. Answerest thou nothing] They had failed to produce testimony against him; now they sought to wrench from him some statement they could interpret as being incriminating.

Matthew 26:63-65; 63. I adjure thee by the living God] Only when the high priest used the voice of adjuration did Jesus deign to answer; such a formal demand was understood to require response. (Leviticus 5:1.)
64. Thou hast said] 'I am the Christ, the Son of God.'
65. He hath spoken blasphemy] Sedition had been the charge; now it was blasphemy. See Luke 22:66-71.

John 18:24. See John 18:12-14, 19-23.