|
The Trial and Crucifixition of Jesus
Despised and Rejected of Men “For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds” (Hebrews 12:3, KJV).1 Tom Ruggirello It is often difficult for those who love Jesus to understand the motivation that led his enemies to commit such blatant sins against him. How could the perfect man Jesus be so despised and rejected of men? With their Savior standing before them, the Jewish leadership was unable to look past their jealousy and greed to see the amazing difference that Jesus could have made in their lives. The Sadducees In the final scenes of our Lord’s earthly life the Sadducees were the primary movers in carrying out his death. Unlike the Pharisees, they had influential ties with the Roman authorities. Because of their political interests, they were accustomed to dealing with the Romans. And so they took the lead when dealing with Pontius Pilate. One of the compelling reasons that caused the Sadducees to hate Jesus was his chasing of the moneychangers from the Temple. The Temple was exclusively ruled by the Sadducees. It was after the second scourging of the Temple that the Sadducees began to take an active role in trying to discredit Jesus (see Matthew 21:12-46). The first place Jesus was taken after his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane was to Annas. Being the former High Priest, he was a Sadducee and would have personally profited from the exorbitant gains generated by the sellers in the temple. It is interesting, however, that during the questioning of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the scourging of the temple was never mentioned. If that was one of the motives in arresting Jesus, why didn’t they bring it up as they sought cause against him? The operation of the temple had been an area of great contention between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were reaping substantial wealth from the sellers and moneychangers. This practice was obnoxious to the Pharisees. Had the Sadducees brought up the scourging as an accusation against Jesus, they would have simply incited the Pharisees. To accomplish their goal of seeing Jesus dead, they would have to find common ground. And so the real reasons for their hatred were never mentioned. Operation of the Sanhedrin The treatment of Jesus before Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin was a shameful spectacle. Alfred Edersheim2 writes about the proper procedures which the Sanhedrin normally followed as they tried criminal cases. He cites six procedural violations of Sanhedrin law in the trial of Jesus. (1) In Jesus’ trial there were no note takers, or court recorders, as we know them today. (2) There was no defense attorney assigned to Jesus. (3) The fact that the proceedings were held in the palace of Caiaphas (a private residence) rather than the usual meeting place of the Sanhedrin would have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law. (4) A verdict was always determined through a vote of the Sanhedrin members. This was clearly not done in Jesus’ case. (5) A verdict could not be decided on the same day as the trial. This was especially true when the verdict was death. (6) No proceeding like this should begin at night, not even in the afternoon. No process could take place on Sabbaths or feast days or even the day before them. By ignoring standard Sanhedrin law, these men were showing their true nature. Under the authoritative leadership of Annas, and the official high priest, Caiaphas, justice was laid aside. After examining how, as a trial, the proceedings were illegal, Edersheim observes that in reality, this was not a formal trial. No death sentence was actually pronounced by the Sanhedrin. The authority for pronouncing death sentences had been taken away from them by the Romans. Their objective was to find some charge that would convince a Roman governor that this was a man worthy of death. In other words, this was more of an inquisition than a trial. When Jesus was finally taken to Pilate, they took him not as someone who had already been condemned, but as someone whom they had charges against. Under a system whose judicial groundwork had been laid by the Mosaic Law, what right had they to convene an inquisition? Even an informal proceeding should have provided a defender for the rights of Jesus. Who was there to object to unfair questions, badgering and demanding that Jesus testify against himself (Matthew 26:63)? Who could stop a guard from slapping Jesus for giving an answer that was construed as disrespectful? The rules of fairness, the rights of the accused and the spirit of the law should have prevailed, and the entire affair should never have been allowed. False Witnesses In this inquisition, like the Inquisitions that came centuries later, many false witnesses were brought forward to accuse Jesus (Matthew 26:59,60). Unlike the refined questions that the Pharisees had devised in their earlier attempts to stumble Jesus, these witnesses were ill prepared and gave contradictory testimony. In the end, two final witnesses came forward to accuse Jesus. They said, “This man stated ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days’” (Matthew 26:61). As we examine this accusation closely, we see that this is not what Jesus said at all. The statement they were referring to was made three years earlier, after the first scourging of the temple. The Jewish leaders had asked Jesus for a sign that could establish his authority to chase out the moneychangers. Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, (in other words, if you destroy this temple) and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). John explained in John 2:21 that Jesus spoke of the temple of his body, but the Jews thought that he spoke of the literal temple. But even if Jesus did refer to the literal temple, they clearly twisted his words. They implied that the Lord was threatening violence to the temple. When pressed for an answer to this accusation by Caiaphas, Jesus offered no defense. His silence prompted the high priest to discard the accusation and directly challenge Jesus. He said, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus answered, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:63,64). These were the first and last words spoken by Jesus to Caiaphas. To the High Priest it was a confession of blasphemy. Caiaphas then tore his robes in outrage and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think? They answered, He deserves death! Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him” (Matthew 26:65-67). And so began the physical abuse of our Lord that would lead to the ultimate cruelty, the Roman cross. Before Pilate The next morning Jesus was brought to Pilate. The night before, while in the Palace of Caiaphas, the Jews concluded that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. However, when they spoke to Pilate, we notice that their charges against Jesus had changed. They said, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2). By manipulating the charges against Jesus we see that the Jews knew that a charge of blasphemy against the God of Israel would mean nothing to Pilate. And so some time that night they created charges that would move Pilate to take action. They played on Pilate’s weakness of valuing his career more than he valued justice. When they said that Jesus perverted the nation, the thought in the Greek is that “he stirred up the people to disaffection and rebellion.” In other words, they were accusing Jesus of teaching the people to rebel against Roman authority. But Jesus rarely spoke of Rome. He certainly never taught the people to rebel against it. Jesus was undermining not Rome’s civil authority, but the religious authority of the Jewish leadership. This is what bothered them so much. But to propose this accusation would not help their cause as they stood before a Roman authority. And so their accusation of undermining Rome stood with its false implication of sowing seeds of rebellion. Their other accusation of Jesus was that he had forbidden Jews to give tribute money to Caesar. This was a deliberate lie. They had heard his position on paying tribute just two days earlier when they asked Jesus whether it was proper to pay tribute to Caesar. His answer was, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). In other words Jesus said that it was proper to pay tribute. If Jesus had wanted to mount a defense, he could have told Pilate what he actually said and that it was the Pharisees who sent their disciples to argue against paying taxes (See Matthew 22:15,16). But Jesus did not do that. He was here for a greater cause than defending his personal rights. He was determined not to resist any attempts to kill him. The Price of Betrayal When Judas went to the chief priests he said, “...what are you willing to give me to betray Him to you? And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him” (Matthew 26:15). Why did the priests decide on 30 pieces of silver? One possible answer is that they were simply following what they believed was prescribed in the law. We read in Exodus 21:32, “If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”3 Apparently, 30 pieces of silver was the value of a slave. In this we see the lowly opinion that the priests had of Jesus. To them he had no more value than a slave. But this text is interesting for another reason. The law gave instructions on what to do if an ox gored a slave. This bears a striking similarity to Jesus’ prophetic words in Psalm 22, “Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me ... Save me from the lion’s mouth; from the horns of the wild oxen” (Psalm 22:12,21). Commenting on this passage Adam Clarke says, “Bashan was a district beyond Jordan, very fertile, where they were accustomed to fatten cattle, which became, in consequence of the excellent pasture, the largest, as well as the fattest, in the country ... All in whose hands were the chief power and influence became David’s enemies ... against Christ, the chiefs both of Jews and Gentiles were united.” Since it was the Jewish priests who instigated the death of Jesus, while the Romans were merely their instruments, the bulls of Bashan likely refer exclusively to the priesthood. So in Psalm 22 we see a prophetic description of how the bulls of Bashan, the powerful, fatted Jewish priesthood, gored Jesus, the innocent slave. For this action they willingly paid 30 pieces of silver. According to the law, these bulls were to be stoned. For all practical purposes this was accomplished when the Romans destroyed the temple and ended the power of the Sanhedrin. As a result, stone was not left upon stone (Matthew 24:2) Repentance of Judas Regarding Judas, we are told that after seeing Jesus condemned, he repented and tried to return the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders (see Matthew 27:3). After they refused to accept the money Judas cast it down in the temple and went and hung himself. He expressed remorse and admitted, “I have sinned in that I betrayed the innocent blood” (Matthew 27:4, KJV). As we examine Judas’ repentance the question arises, was this a proper repentance? Was suicide an appropriate action for Judas to take as an indication of his repentance? The answer must deal with the meaning of repentance. Proper repentance does not merely acknowledge a wrong. Such acknowledgment is certainly appropriate, but what follows such a realization is just as important. When Judas confessed, he did so to the chief priests, and not to God, nor to the one he had sinned against. A proper course of repentance would have been to acknowledge his sin to God and Jesus and to take the necessary steps to undo the harm that he had caused. Of course, in this case there was no undoing Jesus’ road to the cross. This was God’s plan. However, for Judas to carry out a proper repentance, he should have made an attempt to right the wrong. His suicide prevented any good that he could have attempted. There is a powerful lesson here for the Christian who has sinned. Acknowledgment of a wrong to God and those who have been wronged must be followed by a course that seeks to correct any harm that has been caused. In some cases action will not be possible. But even then, these principles should be the desires of the heart. The Spiritual Challenge of the Cross The inhumane suffering that Jesus endured on the cross is beyond description. However, the spiritual challenge to Jesus was also one of the great tests that he endured. How would he respond in his heart to the hatred hurled against him? One of the first things that Jesus encountered after being nailed to the cross was the immediate mocking and challenging from the crowd of onlookers and from the chief priests. “And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads and saying, ‘You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him and saying, ‘He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him. He trusts in God; let God rescue him now if he delights in him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (Matthew 27:39-43). To these insulting and cruel words Jesus again gave no response. Here was a great test of Jesus’ heart. Hatred and bitterness are sinful emotions. If Jesus harbored even a hint of bitterness toward his enemies, if he reveled in the coming calamity on Israel, it would have indicated that sin had entered his heart. As a result, his mission of saving the world would have been a failure. The crucifixion then was not merely a scene of amazing physical suffering. It was our Lord’s final test of faithfulness and love even toward his enemies. In the face of agonizing pain would he have the mental discipline and strength to love those who callously pounded 7 inch spikes through his wrists and feet? Could he close his heart to the resentment that could naturally arise toward the ones who falsely accused him and wanted to snuff out his life? The cross was both a mental and emotional trial of Jesus’ determination to honor the principles that he espoused during his ministry. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44,45). These very words from his Sermon on the Mount may have filled his mind as he was mocked and scorned by his enemies. “Love your enemies ... so that you may be the sons of your father who is in heaven.” How meaningful to his followers to know that Jesus was able to do that. He returned love for hatred. Those who were at Golgotha that day saw that his teachings of love were not just words. They were principles ingrained in him, part of who he was. We have proof that this was his heart condition by the fact that God raised him from the dead. His resurrection was God’s endorsement of a life lived in full obedience and a heart kept in complete purity. How fully he merited God’s exaltation of him, and how we praise him, not only for what he did, but for how he did it!
__________ (2) The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Volume 2, pages 555- 557. (3) Editor’s note: 30 pieces of silver was the price around the days of Boaz and Ruth (20 for Joseph; maybe 50 in Menahem’s time). K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament,” 2003, Figure 43. |