The Trial of Jesus

[el Gusano]

OK, I know His trial was illegal. However, I was told that it was illegal on 27 counts. How can I find out for sure how many and what they were? Thank you kindly.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Yes, according to the trial of Yeshua was illegal. But, I am not sure on how many counts. I will look into it.

Shalom,

Zealot

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Here is an article I have found:

What happened in the trial of Yeshua (Jesus)? The Sanhedrin certainly had the right, the jurisdiction, to try Messiah because the charge against Him was blasphemy. Messiah had allegedly presented new doctrines and had performed miracles which he had failed to give God credit for; moreover, He had claimed to be the Son of God. He had assumed powers belonging to YHVH alone, and He had said, "I and My Father are one."

The actual proceedings before the Sanhedrin, however, were illegal because court convened before the morning sacrifice, which was expressly forbidden by Hebrew law. The trial was further illegal because the Sanhedrin was not to meet for capital punishment cases on Friday or on any day before a feast. Further, Messiah was illegally condemned on his own uncorroborated testimony, as shown by the Scripture: "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. . . And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Yeshua (Jesus), saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed? and Yeshua (Jesus) said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?" (Mark 14:56, 60-63).

This trial was also illegal because Caiaphas rent his clothes. An ordinary Israelite could tear his garments as a sign of grief, but priests were prohibited from doing so because their vestments were made according to specific directions from God and were figurative of the office.

The trial was illegal as well because the merits of Messiah's defense were never considered. Witnesses could have been secured who could testify that He was born in Bethlehem, that He was born of a virgin, was from the House of David, that He performed many miracles, was betrayed by one of His followers, and that He was a man of suffering, despised and rejected--all fulfilling prophecies concerning Israel's Messiah.

The judges of the Sanhedrin hated Messiah because he had denounced hypocrisy and cleansed the Temple; they had held three meetings to conspire against Him. Having an interest in the subject matter of the trial, the judges should have been disqualified.

The verdict of "guilty" was unanimous; court should, therefore, have reconvened the next day. But only about three hours after the first meeting of the Sanhedrin they met again, did not reconsider the evidence, but led Yeshua (Jesus) away and delivered him to Pilate. This action was legally unconscionable.

Before Pilate
The offenses charged against Yeshua (Jesus) by the Jews did not constitute offenses against Rome. Being religious offenses, Rome was not interested in them. The Jews had lost the power to inflict capital punishment when Judea became a Roman province and was placed under a Roman governor, so they carried Messiah before Pilate, hoping the Roman would pass the death sentence.

The Jews took Messiah before Pilate about six or seven o'clock in the morning. Pilate asked the chief priests, "What accusation bring ye against this man?" (John 18:29).The answer of the chief priest was evasive: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee" (John 18:30). The Jews hoped that Pilate would simply accept the Hebrew trial as conclusive and pass sentence upon Christ without further delay. Instead Pilate said, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law" (John 18:31). Then the Jews replied, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John 18:31). This was the first time that Pilate knew of the seriousness of the offense with which Messiah was charged.

When the Jews found that Pilate was not easily persuaded, they began to accuse Yeshua (Jesus), saying, "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Messiah a King" (Luke 23:2). Messiah's accusers thus slyly changed the charge from blasphemy to treason. But this trial was an appeal; it should have been reheard on the same charge and the same evidence. The priests made the switch because they knew that a charge of blasphemy would not avail them anything with Pilate; blasphemy was not a violation of Roman law.

Of the crimes which the Jews accused Jesus before Pilate, the refusal to pay taxes was serious, but the most crucial was treason, that Messiah said he was a king. Pilate took Messiah to the palace and interrogated him. "Art thou the King of the Jews?" (John 18:33). Messiah replied, "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" (John 18:34). Pilate then asked, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" (John 18:35). Yeshua (Jesus) replied, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). The word "kingdom" struck Pilate with great force. By using this word, Jesus stood self-convicted; no man can have a kingdom unless he is a king. Then Pilate said to him, "Art thou a king then?" (John 18:37). To which Jesus replied, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John 18:37). Pilate then asked his famous question: "What is truth?" (John 18:38). He did not wait for an answer and did not really expect one. Pilate thought Yeshua (Jesus) a harmless religious fanatic from whom Rome had nothing to fear and going before the rabble stated: "I find in him no fault at all" (John 18:38). This was clearly an acquittal; it is what a jury would say in freeing an accused person: "We find the defendant not guilty."

The Jews, hearing this, cried out new accusations: "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place" (Luke 23:5). The mention of Galilee, a hotbed of riot and sedition against Rome both made Pilate afraid and showed him a way out. He asked if Yeshua (Jesus) were a Galilean and was told that He was. Herod, as tetrarch of Galilee, occupied a similar position to that of Pilate in Judea. Herod happened to be in Jersalem at the time; Pilate, seeking to escape responsibility, had Messiah led away and taken before Herod.

Herod had heard of Messiah and asked him many questions. Yeshua (Jesus) did not answer any of them. Herod grew vexed, and, to show his resentment, arrayed Messiah in a gorgeous robe and sent him back to Pilate.

Pilate was disappointed and called the priests and rulers of the people, saying to them: "Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him" (Luke 23:14-16). Pilate thought that he could simply scourge the Lord Yeshua (Jesus) and thereby save the wounded pride of the crowd. The crowd, however, would not have it. Pilate again sought to release Yeshua (Jesus), but the crowd demanded the release of Barabbas. The crowd came closer, shouting, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). Pilate again wanted to release Yeshua (Jesus), but more of the people cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him" (John 19:15). Pilate then asked, "Shall I crucify your King?" (John 19:15). And the mob answered, "We have no king but Caesar," adding, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar" (John 19:15, 12). This proved to be too much for Pilate; he was afraid of a complaint to Rome, and he washed his hands of the matter. He then released Barabbas, and after scourging Jesus delivered him to be crucified.

The trial before Pilate was illegal because it was an appeal and yet a new charge of treason was presented by the chief priests. At the beginning the trial was marked with regularity and solemnity. But when Yeshua (Jesus) returned from Herod, Pilate became afraid of the people. He listened to the mob--there was no order and no regularity.

We have thus seen that the Hebrew trial was illegal for many reasons. We have seen too that the Roman trial was first an acquittal, then, when a mob spirit prevailed, became a conviction leading to crucifixion. Both trials, therefore, were illegal.

Article Information
Title: The Illegal Court Trials of Jesus
Author: Allen Clark
Year: 1976, Vol. 4 Num. 1

© Bob Jones University, www.bju.edu/faith. All rights reserved. This material may be copied and forwarded electronically free of charge, as long as the above copyright notice appears on all subsequent copies.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Here is another article I found at www.blueletterbible.org :

1. There Was No Possibility Of A Fair Trial

To begin with, the Sanhedrin should have never held the trial. They had plotted to kill Yeshua ahead of time. Consequently they were hardly in a position to render a fair verdict as to his guilt or innocence. This is especially true of the High Priest Caiaphas. He is the one who said that it was necessary for Yeshua to die for the entire nation. The High Priest was the supreme judge in Israel. It was his responsibility to see that a person be given a fair trial. At the very least, he should have not participated in trial in any manner. Yet he was the driving force behind the arrest and trial of Yeshua. Therefore there was no possibility that Yeshua could have been given a fair trial.

2. A Capital Trial At Night Was Illegal

It was illegal to try capital cases at night. By doing so the Sanhedrin broke the law. When a person’s life was at stake the trial could only be held during the day.

3. They Should Not Have Looked For Witnesses After The Trial Started

According to Jewish law, a trial starts when witnesses come forward to testify. The Sanhedrin should not have gone out to look for witnesses. The witnesses come first, then the trial.

4. They Should Not Have Looked For False Witnesses

Not only should the Sanhedrin have not looked for witnesses, they certainly should not have looked for false witnesses if Yeshua were to be given a fair trial. The verdict, of course, was never in doubt.

5. The False Witnesses Should Have Been Punished

Since the Sanhedrin knew the testimony of the witnesses was false, these witnesses, according to Jewish law, should have been punished. The fact that they were not is another illegality.

6. The Judgment Should Have Been Delayed Till Next Day

In capital cases, judgment was to be delayed until the next day. The fact that they pronounced judgment immediately is another sign of the illegal nature of the trial.

7. There Not Supposed To Be A Trial On Day Before The Sabbath Or Before Holy Days

Since the judgment in a capital case could not be rendered until the next day, it was illegal to try someone on the day before the Sabbath or before some holy day. During the Sabbath day or holy day there could be no legal meeting of the Sanhedrin. Consequently the timing of the trial was also illegal.

8. They Never Considered Yeshua’ Testimony

There is also the problem of Yeshua’ testimony. When Yeshua was put under oath he acknowledged that he was the Messiah – the promised Deliverer. This admission of Yeshua was what caused the Sanhedrin to cry out that he was guilty of death. However, they never stopped to consider the possibility that Jesus was telling the truth. There was not the slightest interest in attempting to find out whether Yeshua may indeed be the promised Messiah. There was no evidence that was allowed to be given on Yeshua’ behalf and they weighed no evidence before making their judgment.

Conclusion

When all the facts are weighed it becomes clear that those who tried Yeshua on that night were not interested in giving him a fair trial. The verdict had been determined ahead of time. They only went through the motions of the appearance of a fair trial. Yeshua was illegally and wrongfully tried.

[el Gusano]

Thank you kindly.