We remind ourselves: it was a Passover time when our Lord was crucified and his end was brought about by the Jewish leaders. At this season the Jewish nation congregated in large numbers around Jerusalem to celebrate an ancient event: the deliverance of their ancestors from the bondage of Egypt.
Passover was a time for humility and gratitude; there would have been no occasion for celebrating the feast if the Lord God had not extended His hand to succour His people. The leaders of the nation should have been foremost in reflecting upon the past and all they owed to their God. But they had another preoccupation: to get rid of the carpenter from Nazareth.
Overwhelming hostility to Jesus
Earlier, the high priest in office, Caiaphas, had expressed the opinion that it was “expedient” that one man should die, so that the whole nation did not perish (John 11:49-50 RV, as all quotes).
The intention to get rid of the Lord had been expressed early in the ministry. When the Lord healed the man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, the Pharisees were already considering by what means they could destroy him (Matt. 12:14), while Mark informs us they enlisted the assistance of the Herodians to bring this about (Mk. 3:6).
There can be no doubt that, from an early stage, Jesus was a marked man: the first cleansing of the temple was a resounding challenge to the authorities (see John 2:13-16). This event took place at Passover time, and reports of it would have spread far and wide in Jewry. Throughout his ministry, in various ways, the Lord continued to be a thorn in the side of the leaders, and the final events, as we have seen, humiliated and incensed them (Tidings, 5/2000, p. 178).
Legalities ignored
All this meant that Caiaphas and his associates were little concerned about legal niceties. In their eyes it was expedient to get rid of Jesus of Nazareth.
If expediency takes little account of truth and justice, appearances had to be preserved. Accordingly, the semblance of a trial was arranged. A properly judicial trial takes account of evidence lest there be a miscarriage of justice. The accused may be found guilty or innocent according to the nature of the evidence produced. But this was to be a trial conducted with no concern for justice:
“Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him” (Matt. 26:3-4).
Guile was to be used and the outcome was not to be in any doubt: the accused was to be found guilty and be condemned to death. Briefly, the trial was going to be “rigged.”
What a charade! One is reminded of the occasions orchestrated by the communist regimes when dissidents were put on trial. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. So it was in the case of our Lord.
Priests blatantly guilty
Yet none should have known better than the Jewish leaders that such procedure was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord God, and would inevitably bring retribution upon them. In the books of Moses, in whom they gloried, it was stated categorically:
“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour” (Lev. 19:15).
In the final words he addressed to the nation, Moses reminded the people of the importance of this principle (Deut. 1:16-17). The priests had a special responsibility in this connection. In the last book of the Old Testament they are taken severely to task:
“But ye are turned aside out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble in the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have had respect of persons in the law” (Mal. 2:8-9).
Having decided they would submit the Lord to a trial, the Jewish authorities were obliged to appear to go through the motions. On what charge was Jesus to be found guilty and how was this charge to be established? Witnesses were essential.
A sham trial
In view of the weakness of the case to be brought against the Lord – – of which the enemies of Jesus were fully conscious — they sought false witnesses. It is clear the testimony of these carried no weight. “Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witnesses against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they found it not, though many false witnesses came” (Matt. 26:59,60).
Mark tells us that there was no coherence in what they alleged: “…And their witness agreed not together” (Mk. 14:56). The intriguing suggestion has been made that the few members of the Sanhedrin favourable to the Lord, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus and possibly Gamaliel, interrogated these witnesses and exposed their contradictions. We cannot even be sure, however, that Joseph and Nicodemus were present, for they would be fully conscious of the purpose of the council.
We must remember that, in a sense, the Jewish leaders were ill prepared: they were acting in haste, conducting a trial which they had not anticipated. Moreover, they wanted the affair expedited, so that they could attend to the Passover. There must have been some feverish activity as they exploited the unexpected opportunity which the treachery of Judas presented.
After the embarrassing failure to establish any kind of case, two witnesses were found. They alleged that Jesus had declared he was able to destroy the temple of God and then to build it in three days (Matt. 26:61). This is a distorted version of the words of Jesus. Mark’s version of the charge is slightly different: “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands” (Mk. 14:58). This is nearer to what the Lord actually said. He did not, however, himself declare that he was going to destroy the temple but said that if they destroyed it, he would rebuild it, a fact which should have given them pleasure. We know that he was not speaking of the literal temple but was already indicating that they would put him to death, only for him to rise the third day (John 2:19). The whole episode is a classic example of how a saying, especially the enigmatic kind, could be distorted as it passed from mouth to mouth.
Jesus’ own words used
To the evident annoyance of Caiaphas, the Lord made no response to what the witnesses reported. Any endeavour on his part to clarify the matter would have been a waste of time: they would have ears to hear but no capacity to understand. There is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Eccl. 3:7), and there was none who knew this better than the Lord.
Before what appears to him the stubborn silence of the accused, the high priest changes his ground: solemnly he challenges Jesus to say whether he is “the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63, Mk. 14:61). Now the Lord must answer, and this he does not hesitate to do. He confirms his status as the Messiah and Son of God by quoting a celebrated Messianic prophecy: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62). There was in these words too plain an evocation of Daniel 7:13-14 for any member of the Sanhedrin to miss it. Furthermore, the mention by our Lord of God’s “right hand” clearly alludes to Psalm 110 (see also Matt. 22:43-45).
This resounding endorsement by Jesus of the claim to be the Messiah and God’s son infuriated Caiaphas who, in his rage, tears his high priestly garments. He now has what he has hitherto been vainly trying to secure: he describes the Lord’s claim as blasphemy. He appeals to the other members of the council: “What think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death” (Matt. 26:66; Mk. 14:64).
Wickedness reigns
We remind ourselves that this was supposed to be a properly constituted trial. These were the most distinguished members of Jewish society. Now, however, they felt they had grounds for action against the Lord. Abandoning all decorum, they spat in his face, knocked him about, slapped him and abused his body (Matt. 26:67).
We wonder whether there has ever been another court of law where the judges have behaved in so deplorable a manner. It is a measure of their frustration and hatred; they had been humbled so often in their encounters with the Lord that now they had him at their mercy, they were going to make the most of it.
There was no protestation from our Lord. So often he must have thought of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 50:6) and prayerfully had prepared himself for the actual experience.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One