CALVARY BIBLE COLLEGE

THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO

KIETH MIILER

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

SURVERY OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE

RP112

BY

JACOB BLUEBAUGH

KANSAS CITY, MO

APRIL 2008
 OUTLINE

I. Introduction

II. Errors in the Ecclesiastical Trial of Christ

III. Conclusion
 THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Introduction

In today’s society, trials can take anywhere from a month to a couple years. These trials

are often drawn out cases where every possible piece of evidence, every suspect, and every

testimony is examined in order to come to a proper verdict. But suppose there were a case that

had six trials in the span of twelve hours, and where the verdict was based off of false

testimonies and no other evidence. What would be said of this trial? Would people call it a

mockery to the judicial system, or perhaps a travesty of justice? Perhaps it may seem a little

difficult to imagine, but believe it or not, such a case did take place and the verdict led to a swift

death penalty.

Chances are if someone were asked to identify which case this is, they would not know,

simply because nothing like this case has happened in recent years. This case took place over

2000 years ago, and in order for the case to proceed, the court system of that day had to violate

seventeen of their own laws. The trial was that of Jesus Christ before the Sanhedrin.

Before the trial is evaluated, it is important to briefly set the context in which the trial

found itself. The trial of Jesus, who was being tried for charges of blasphemy, consisted of six

trials through the Sanhedrin system as a result of the Romans ruling the Jewish people at that

time.

It was not the policy of Rome to strip the countries of which she became mistress of all
power. She flattered them by leaving in their hands at least the insignia of self-
government, and she conceded to them as much home law as was compatible with the
retention of her paramount authority. She was especially tolerant in matters of religion.
Thus the ancient ecclesiastical tribunal of the Jews, the Sanhedrin, was still allowed to try
 all religious questions and punish offenders. Only, if the sentence chanced to be a capital
one, the case had to be re-tried by the governor, and carrying out of the sentence, if it was
confirmed, devolved up him.1

This means that Jesus had to endure two basic types of court: ecclesiastical and civil. The

ecclesiastical trial pertained to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish court system of the day, while the civil

trial pertained to the Roman governor of that province. The purpose of this paper is to examine

the Sanhedrin aspect of the trial and briefly evaluate the laws that were broken in order to carry

out the trial.

Errors in the Ecclesiastical Trial of Christ

As was stated before, the Sanhedrin violated seventeen of their own laws throughout the

six trials. The Jewish law, the Talmud, is very clear and strict on how a trial is to be processed,

yet what motivated the Sanhedrin to break law after law? It came from their clear hatred of Jesus

Christ found in several accounts throughout the four gospels (Matthew 22:15, Mark 3:6, Luke

16:14, John 11:53) . Throughout his ministry, the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and just about every other

Jewish sect, were after him, trying to find some reason to arrest and get rid of him.

Their chance to do so finally came when one of Jesus’ disciples came to them with a

proposal; he would lead them to Jesus. One night in Gethsemane is where it all began. Judas

handed over Jesus to them and all of the hearings and interrogation began. Take notice, however,

as to when he was arrested. Jesus was arrested on a Thursday night, which was the day before

Sabbath began.

Therefore, if Jesus were arrested at or just before Feast, it would be necessary that He
should be remanded in custody, in the “common prison” (Acts 5:18) for nine days – until
the Feast was over. Who could say what disturbances might not break out during that
time and what attempts at rescue essayed either during the remand or when Jesus

1
James M. Stalker, The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House),
16.
 appeared in Court? No. Caution advised “No arrest at the Feast; wait until the masses of
pilgrims have returned home.”2

According to their laws, no process could start on or before the Sabbath or feast day.

While the law they broke was not absolutely detrimental to the trial, it was however against their

laws. Arresting Jesus on that Thursday night was taking a huge risk of a riot on the Sabbath.

Further, Jewish law prohibited any process of trial to be started in the afternoon or

evening.3 This law was not broken merely once on that Thursday night, but three separate times.

Through the course of that night, Jesus was before Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin multiple

times. “Assuming that the proceedings before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin purported to be a

formal legal trial, convened and held in due course of both the Written and Oral Law, then it was

void ab initio because it was held by night.”4

After his arrest, Jesus was taken before Annas, which was a little peculiar considering

that at the time, Annas held no official position. Some attribute this meeting to the fact that

Annas still had influence, considering he once held the office of High Priest and five of his sons

succeeded him.

That he had much influence is clear from the fact that five of his sons later gained the
high priesthood, but that is no reason for taking a prisoner to him before the trial occurs.
That he was one of the two presidents of the Sanhedrin is another assumption made many
times recently. No adequate justification, therefore, can be discovered for a conversation
between Annas and Jesus as the preliminary to a formal trial.5

2
Frank J. Powell, The Trial of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1949), 45.
3
David K. Breed, The Trial of Christ from a Legal and Scriptural Viewpoint (Saint Louis, MO: Thomas
Law Book Company, 1948), 40.
4
Frank J. Powell, The Trial of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1949), 61.
5
Richard Wellington Husband, The Prosecution of Jesus: Its Date, History and Legality (London:
Princeton University Press, 1916), 109.
 The book of John is the only Gospel to record the meeting between Jesus and Annas, and

while details of the encounter are not given, it is exposed that Annas is the father-in-law to

Caiaphas, which could be another reason for taking Jesus to him first. The recorded conversation

between them is also brief. In the account, Annas went straight to the point and tried to come up

with a charge of blasphemy, to which Jesus simply stated that Annas should ask those who

followed him if he had blasphemed. After that statement Annas sent Jesus away to Caiaphas.

Considering that Annas was not the acting High Priest, and held no other office, this

meeting too, broke a law. Only those in the Sanhedrin had any power to do anything with this

trial.

We should, however, have little doubt on this point if we recall that John expressly
mentions that Caiaphas was the High Priest and that the questions were put by the High
Priest; that the Hight Priest (and not the ex-High Priest) was the supreme Judge in Israel;
that only the Greater Sanhedrin could try a false prophet; that the High Priest was the
President of the Greater Sanhedrin and the one who by Jewish law and tradition presided
over the deliberations of that Tribunal.6

Jesus, being sent to Caiaphas, was not sent to the Sanhedrin’s meeting place, but rather

Caiaphas’ own house. Even in today’s society, no such action is allowed. This house is where

most of the laws are broken. First and foremost, they were not meeting at a place of the

Sanhedrin which meant that Caiaphas had no jurisdiction at the time of this meeting.7

As a judge, Caiaphas did things out of order in the sense that he tried to get Jesus to say

something with which to convict him, before he even had a case based on the testimonies of the

6
Frank J. Powell, The Trial of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1949), 57.
7
David K. Breed, The Trial of Christ from a Legal and Scriptural Viewpoint (Saint Louis, MO: Thomas
Law Book Company, 1948), 56.
other witnesses. This action went against all logical action of the court system. How can a charge

be brought against someone without first having a basis for the charge?

There was no regular charge or regular evidence, and no thought whatever of allowing
the Accused to bring counter-evidence; the same person were both accusers and judges;
the sentence was a foregone conclusion; and the entire proceedings consisted of a series
of devices to force the Accused into some statement which would supply a colorable
pretext for condemning Him.8

One of the biggest mistakes that the Sanhedrin made was to allow Caiaphas to be the

reigning judge during this trial. Caiaphas had already once come out and publicly declared that

Jesus deserved death. (John 11:47-53) Thus, his stance and opinion of the issue was clear before

the trial had started. Yet, Caiaphas was allowed to reign over the trial with a clear bias. “No

doubt there should have been several judges in the Sanhedrin trial and if any were prejudiced

against Jesus, he should not sit in judgment in the case.”9

When the gospel narratives of this trial are read, it is quickly noticed that Jesus never had

anyone to represent his case. Not once did the Sanhedrin even offer to give Jesus a

representative. Instead, Jesus Christ was forced to defend himself against a vast amount of

rigorous questioning from a group of people decidedly against him no matter what was said in

his defense. Bringing up this error is by no means to suggest that Christ needed a representative,

but is merely to demonstrate the error on the side of the Sanhedrin.

Yet another aspect to this error is that the Sanhedrin called for witnesses, instead of

allowing witnesses to voluntarily show up. Thus, the witnesses that were called were in the same

camp as the Sanhedrin but did not have the same stories and were bearing false witness. This

8
James M. Stalker, The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House),
22.
9
David K. Breed, The Trial of Christ from a Legal and Scriptural Viewpoint (Saint Louis, MO: Thomas
Law Book Company, 1948), 57.
should have automatically discounted their credibility in the court and should have resulted in

their testimony taken out of consideration for the final verdict.

This is an irregularity, for witnesses were expected to appear voluntarily, and to become
the accusers. In the Hebrew legal system no provision was made for official prosecutors.
Even the Sanhedrin did not take the initiative, but waited for an interested person to come
forward with a charge. But in the case of Jesus they made the arrest on their own
authority, and proceeded with the case by calling for witnesses.10

This lead to another error; it was and still is unlawful to convict someone on the basis of

false testimony. Clearly this case was marked by false witnesses since none of the testimonies

added up and all of them conflicted with one another. (Matthew 26:59-61, Mark 14:55-59)

Reading the Gospel narratives also brings to light that throughout the trial; the prospects

of guilt and innocence were never taken into consideration. The Sanhedrin had three meetings

before the arrest of Jesus was even made and in the second meeting, Christ’s guilt was voted

upon.11 Thus he was sentenced guilty before the trial even started.

At the first meeting that the Sanhedrin had, they discussed what action should be taken

against Jesus and his followers and that excommunication would be appropriate for them but a

decision towards Jesus’ fate was not decided at that time. It was at the second meeting that the

vote was passed to have Jesus executed. In the third and final meeting, which took place two

days before Passover, it was discussed when the actions should take place.12

The biggest spoke in the wheel for the Jewish part of the trial is the fact that they

technically did not have any power or jurisdiction to do anything in the trial. This is a result of

Rome’s province governing that removed the authority from them forty years prior to the trial of

10
Richard Wellington Husband, The Prosecution of Jesus: Its Date, History and Legality (London:
Princeton University Press, 1916), 115.
11
Ibid, 109.
12
Ibid.
Christ. However, it is important to distinguish that the Sanhedrin did have judicial power, just

not in the capacity to deal with a capital case, which the Jews had inadvertently made when they

pushed for the death penalty. At that point Rome should have been given the case.

The next error was also against what Rome had set into place forty years prior to the trial

of Christ. According to Roman regulation, all trials were to be public and since this trial was a

private trail before Annas and Caiaphas, it was in clear violation of Rome.13

During the trial, the high priest turned to his colleagues in the Sanhedrin and declared that

Jesus was speaking blasphemous words. This too was an error since in doing so the high priest

had declared his own opinion and was expecting an agreement on the part of the rest of the

Sanhedrin.

For, after declaring publicly his own opinion, he called for an expression of opinion on
the part of his colleagues. But orderly procedure required that the youngest member of
the court should be the first to express his opinion, and the voting should proceed
gradually toward the oldest and most revered among the Sanhedrists. The purpose of this
law was to prevent the younger and less experienced members from being unduly
influenced by the decision of their elder. But in this case the member of highest rank
stated at the very outset how he intended to vote on the question of the guilt or innocence
of Jesus.14

Finally, a criminal could not be convicted on the same day in which the trial started. Not

only could the guilty verdict not be given on the same day but it also had to be discussed for at

least two days.15

13
David K. Breed, The Trial of Christ from a Legal and Scriptural Viewpoint (Saint Louis, MO: Thomas
Law Book Company, 1948), 42.
14
Richard Wellington Husband, The Prosecution of Jesus: Its Date, History and Legality (London:
Princeton University Press, 1916), 124.
15
David K. Breed, The Trial of Christ from a Legal and Scriptural Viewpoint (Saint Louis, MO: Thomas
Law Book Company, 1948), 43.
 Conclusion

The trial of Jesus was indeed a mockery of justice, not only in today’s standards but also

according to the standards set in that time period. Not only did the Sanhedrin force their way

through law after law, but they also went directly against the authority above them at the time. A

trial like this should not have been allowed to proceed, but instead thrown out.

The fact is that it was not thrown out or stopped. It may have been the largest form of

injustice known to man, but it if had not been as such, what outcome would have come? Would

Christ have died on the cross? Would the example of enduring hardship have been set? However

unfair or unjust this trial was, it was necessary to fulfill the will of God.

When looking at the story, it is amazing to see that Jesus knew the entire time how things

would pan out, yet he subjected himself to the false trial anyway. He endured betrayal, false

witness after false witness, six trials in twelve hours, and the beatings of a mob. Through all of

this, however, he did not lash out in anger, he did not call down angels to rescue him, and he did

not strike anyone nor did he use his power to wipe them off the face of the earth. What he did

though was far more effective. He allowed himself to be led like a lamb, silent and humble, to

the slaughter in order to take on the sins of the world, thus allowing man to be forgiven and

reconciled with God.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Breed, David K. The Trial of Christ from a Legal and Scriptural Viewpoint. Saint Louis: Thomas
Law Book Company, 1948.

Husband, Richard Wellington. The Prosecution of Jesus: Its Date, History, and Legality.
London: Princeton University Press, 1916.

Innes, A. Taylor. The Trial of Jesus Christ: A Legal Monograph. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1905.

Powell, Frank J. The Trial of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1949.

Stalker, James M. The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House.