One Irregularity After Another

The Law that Moses delivered to Israel has been called “the greatest and most enlightened system of jurisprudence ever promulgated.” By Jesus’ day, however, legalistically minded rabbis had added to it a mass of extra-Biblical rules, many of which were later recorded in the Talmud. (See the box “Jewish Laws in the First Centuries,” on page 20.) How did Jesus’ trial measure up to these Biblical and extra-Biblical criteria?

Did Jesus’ arrest result from concordant testimony before a court by two witnesses regarding a specific crime? For the arrest to be legal, it should have. In first-century Palestine, a Jew who believed that a law had been broken brought his charge to court during regular sessions. Courts could not initiate charges but merely investigated accusations brought before them. The only prosecutors were the witnesses to an alleged crime. Proceedings began when the deposition of at least two witnesses to the same act agreed. Their testimony constituted the charge, which led to an arrest. The evidence of just one witness was not permitted. (Deuteronomy 19:15) In Jesus’ case, however, the Jewish authorities merely sought an “effective way” to get rid of him. He was taken into custody when “a good opportunity” arose​—at night and “without a crowd around.”​—Luke 22:2, 5, 6, 53.

At the time of Jesus’ arrest, there was no charge against him. The priests and the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, began looking for witnesses only after he was in custody. (Matthew 26:59) They could not find two whose testimony agreed. Yet, the court had no business to be looking for witnesses. And “to try a man, especially for his life, without specifying beforehand the crime on which he is to be tried, is justly held to be an outrage,” says lawyer and author A. Taylor Innes.

The mob that detained Jesus took him to the house of former High Priest Annas, who began questioning him. (Luke 22:54; John 18:12, 13) Annas’ actions flouted the rule that capital charges were to be tried by day, not by night. Moreover, any fact-finding should have taken place in open court, not behind closed doors. Aware of the illegality of Annas’ interrogation, Jesus replied: “Why do you question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them. See! These know what I said.” (John 18:21) Annas should have been examining the witnesses, not the accused. Jesus’ observation might have moved an honest judge to respect proper procedure, but Annas was not interested in justice.

Jesus’ response earned him a slap from an officer​—not the only violence he endured that night. (Luke 22:63; John 18:22) The law recorded in the Bible book of Numbers chapter 35, concerning cities of refuge, states that the accused were to be shielded from mistreatment until guilt was established. Jesus should have been afforded such protection.

Jesus’ captors now led him to the home of High Priest Caiaphas, where the illegal nighttime trial continued. (Luke 22:54; John 18:24) There, in defiance of all principles of justice, the priests sought “false witness against Jesus in order to put him to death,” yet no two testimonies agreed as to what Jesus had said. (Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:56-59) So the high priest tried to get Jesus to incriminate himself. “Do you say nothing in reply?” he asked. “What is it these are testifying against you?” (Mark 14:60) This tactic was completely out of line. “Putting the question to the accused, and founding a condemnation on his answer, was [a] violation of formal justice,” observes Innes, quoted earlier.

That assembly finally seized upon a statement Jesus made. In response to the question: “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus answered: “I am; and you persons will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” The priests construed this as blasphemy, and “they all condemned him to be liable to death.”​—Mark 14:61-64.b

According to the Mosaic Law, trials were to be held in public. (Deuteronomy 16:18; Ruth 4:1) This, on the other hand, was a secret trial. No one attempted to or was allowed to speak in Jesus’ favor. No examination was made of the merits of Jesus’ claim to Messiahship. Jesus had no opportunity to summon witnesses for his defense. There was no orderly voting among the judges as to guilt or innocence.

[Box/​Picture on page 20]

Jewish Laws in the First Centuries

Jewish oral tradition, put into writing in the early centuries C.E. but believed to be of great antiquity, included the following rules:

▪ In capital cases, arguments for acquittal were heard first

▪ The judges were to make every effort to save the accused

▪ Judges could argue for the accused but not against him

▪ Witnesses were warned of the seriousness of their role

▪ Witnesses were examined separately, not in the presence of any other witness

▪ Testimony had to agree on all essential points​—date, place, time of day of the action, and so on

▪ Capital charges had to be tried by day and concluded by day

▪ Capital cases could not be considered on the eve of a Sabbath or a festival

▪ Capital cases could begin and end on the same day if the verdict was favorable to the accused; if it was unfavorable, the case could be concluded only on the next day, when the verdict would be announced and the sentence executed

▪ Capital cases were tried by at least 23 judges

▪ Judges took turns when voting to acquit or to condemn, commencing with the youngest; scribes recorded the words of those who favored acquittal and of those who favored conviction

▪ Acquittal was decided by a simple majority of one, but conviction only by a majority of two; if the vote was for conviction by a majority of just one, two judges were added as often as necessary until a valid decision was reached

▪ A verdict of guilty without at least one judge arguing for the accused was invalid; a unanimous verdict of guilty was considered “indicative of a conspiracy”

Illegalities in Jesus’ Trial

▪ The court heard no arguments or witnesses for acquittal

▪ None of the judges sought to defend Jesus; they were his enemies

▪ The priests sought false witnesses to condemn Jesus to death

▪ The case was heard at night behind closed doors

▪ The trial began and concluded in one day, the eve of a festival

▪ There was no indictment, or charge, prior to Jesus’ arrest

▪ Jesus’ claim to Messiahship, said to be “blasphemy,” was not examined

▪ The charge was changed when the case came before Pilate

▪ The accusations were false

▪ Pilate found Jesus innocent but still had him executed