The Trials of Jesus - pt.2

Introduction

John 18:13–27 (NAC Jn 12-21): “As one turns to the post-arrest narrative in John, one encounters a fascinating literary style in which the evangelist interweaves the stories of the Jewish hearings and Peter’s denials. This phenomenon continues into the Roman hearings, where he interweaves Pilate’s conferences with the Jewish leadership and Pilate’s interrogations of Jesus. The result of this interweaving process produces a skillfully executed piece of literature in which the varying parts of the narrative are molded into an integrated story.”

The record of Peter’s denial of Jesus is woven inside of the trials of Jesus for a reason.

I believe that it is vital to look at Peter’s denials that way.

The Spirit of God has arranged it so that there might be a better perspective about Peter and his ministry in the church.

But first, he has to be seen in his failures and then in his restoration.

Review:

Judas has left the upper room during the meal.

He has gone away into the night, Thursday Night, in order to introduce his plan to hand Jesus over to the high priest.

They gladly receive Him and send notice to Pilate that Jesus is staring a rebellion that very night on the Mount of Olives.

We will arrange these things around observations

Observation #1 - A malicious false assertion made

Pilate releases a cohort of Roman soldiers to go with the chief priests, commander, and others to arrest Jesus and stop the rebellion, the insurrection.

They arrive at the scene of the Mount of Olives and find Jesus rebuking His disciples for not praying with Him.

The noise and clatter of the Roman soldiers as well as the fire of the torches light up the night with the reality of what is about to happen.

Jesus walks forward to meet the cohort,

They ask Him if He is Jesus the Nazarene.

He tells then that He is the “I AM.”

The entire group fall to the ground from the glory of His name.

They get up and Judas walks to Jesus and kisses Him in order to show the official sign to the group whom they should arrest.

The disciples scatter and Jesus is arrested and taken back down the dill towards Jerusalem.

Peter follows the group, but in the background.

Observation #2 A Malicious Location for Trial Made.

“This was irregular; for the prescriptive place of meeting was the Lishcath ha Gazith (or paved hall, or chamber of hewn stones), which stood on the great wall, partly within the Court of Israel, and partly in the Court of the Gentiles, on the southeast of the Holy Place. This rule, however, had lately been infringed by the removal of the Great Court of Justice from its legitimate place of session to the bazaars, or booths, of the sons of Annas, and subsequently to the city and to other places. And so the Talmud testifies in a well-known passage, “Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, judgment in capital cases was taken away from Israel: also the council removed, and sat in the sheds.” This transference took place a year or two before the Trial of the Lord; and is recognized in the Talmud as legitimate. The assembling of the council in the high priest’s palace might have been held to be justified by this innovation, and would not, in itself, have invalidated the proceedings transacted there. The rule had been broken, and the Lishcath ha Gazith was no longer essential as the only lawful place of meeting.”

Septimus Buss, The Trial of Jesus: Illustrated from Talmud and Roman Law (London; New York; Brighton: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; E. S. Gorham, 1906), 69–70.

He is first brought to Annas.

Annas interrogates Him, already concluding that He is worthy of death, but not having identified a crime.

Annas is not the official High Priest that year, but has held control of the priesthood for about 50 years now.

John 18:19 LSB

19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching.

It was in the presence of Annas that Jesus receives His first slap…He does not try to hide from the slap nor retaliate.

Peter has been let into the courtyard of the High Priest and is warming himself by the fire with the soldiers and others.

It was at this point that one of the servant-girls identifies Peter and he denies even knowing the Man.

Annas’ “trial” of Jesus was not official. But, it was necessary in order for Annas to attempt to get an official statement from Jesus publicly so that Annas can repeat that to Caiaphas who can then give the official verdict.

Jesus does not reply to the questioning directly.

He refers them to others who heard His teaching.

Annas sends Him to Caiaphas as a sign to continue with the plan to condemn Jesus, using the religious/political system in place to do it.

This is where we left off last week.

Jesus is on His way to Caiaphas.

Again, this action by Annas signals to Caiaphas, and the rest of the priesthood that Annas approves of Jesus’ death.

In order to see what happens next, we turn to Mark and Matthew.

Observation #2 - Malicious false witnesses presented.

Mark 14:55–59 LSB

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. And some, standing up, were giving false testimony against Him, saying, “We ourselves heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this sanctuary made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” And not even in this way was their testimony consistent.

Matthew 26:59–61 LSB

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. And they did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the sanctuary of God and to rebuild it in three days.’”

The Trial of Jesus: Illustrated from Talmud and Roman Law Chapter XIII: Importance of Witnesses

It might seem, at first sight, that these verses contain unnecessary repetitions; but this stress laid on the testimony of witnesses is no accidental coincidence, for both Matthew and Mark were presumably well versed in the customs of the law courts of Palestine.

First the accusation is brought by the witnesses, not the accusers:

The Trial of Jesus: Illustrated from Talmud and Roman Law Chapter XIII: Importance of Witnesses

The witnesses came forward voluntarily. They took upon their shoulders the whole responsibility of the accusation. No formal indictment was framed. There was, in fact, no charge until the evidence of the witnesses had been laid before the court. The trial could not begin until this was done. They were virtually the prosecutors: and so distinctly was this recognized, that a legal maxim might have been based upon the fact, and expressed in some such words as these, “No witnesses; therefore no accusation and no trial.”

The Trial of Jesus: Illustrated from Talmud and Roman Law Chapter XIII: Importance of Witnesses

In place of the oath administered by an official of the court, the judges themselves solemnly charged the witnesses to speak the truth as standing in the presence of God, and to bear in mind that false evidence may bring upon them the blood of the accused, in the case of his being condemned. (See p. 61.)

Second, the witnesses carry the responsibility of the accusation, its accuracy and legitimacy:

The Trial of Jesus: Illustrated from Talmud and Roman Law Chapter XIII: Importance of Witnesses

The gist of the whole matter lay in this:—that the witnesses came forward voluntarily, and took upon themselves the whole burden of responsibility for the accusation submitted to the court—a responsibility which was still further brought home to them by the knowledge that, on the conviction of the defendant, it would become their duty to commence the execution of the sentence by inflicting the first blow, or casting the first stone (See p. 66).

Deuteronomy 17:6–7 LSB

6 “On the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the mouth of one witness. 7 “The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Third, if the accused begins to attempt to defend himself, he was given every opportunity to be considered utterly innocent:

The Trial of Jesus: Illustrated from Talmud and Roman Law Chapter XIII: Importance of Witnesses

The business in court, after the formal depositions of the witnesses, began with an argument in favour of the accused, who was also allowed to speak on his own behalf, and to produce evidence in support of his statements. And the court was so merciful that it prohibited him from putting forward any statements to his own disadvantage. If he persisted in accusing himself, or in accepting as true the evidence brought against him, he was not to be believed, unless that evidence was clearly proved by sworn testimony. All the rules of procedure were in fact expressly framed for the protection of the accused (p. 62).

But, what does the Scripture say happened?

The accusers brought forth the witnesses!!

Matthew 26:59 LSB

59 Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.

Mark 14:55 LSB

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.

The Scriptures tell us that the testimony of these “witnesses” was contradictory to itself.

The accusations were of such a nature as to contradict the other’s testimony.

This indicated an impromptu accusation and not an actual action on the part of the accused.

This should have been thrown out, and the witnesses should have been given the punishment they were seeking for Jesus.

Consider what the OT said should happen in these conditions:

Exodus 23:1–3 LSB

1 “You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. 2 “You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a case so as to turn aside after the masses in order to cause justice to be turned aside; 3 nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his case.

Exodus 23:7–8 LSB

7 “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not justify the guilty. 8 “And you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just.

The obviously normal procedure for legal proceedings against a charge is to provide obvious, ample, logical, evidence from witnesses who observed the sin against God.

These men would be those who have seen:

a man move the boundary of his property.

a ox gore another man’s ox.

a man conduct himself immorally.

a theft

a blasphemy

etc…

The point is, the witness is one who SAW the accusation happen by the accused.

Then, if it was serious enough, they would bring the accusation to the courts of the priests.

BUT...

Deuteronomy 19:16–21 LSB

16 “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 “And the judges shall inquire thoroughly, and behold, if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 20 “And the rest will hear and be afraid and will never again do such an evil thing among you. 21 “Thus your eye shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

There cannot be only one witness:

Deuteronomy 17:6 LSB

6 “On the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the mouth of one witness.

Numbers 35:30 LSB

30 ‘If anyone strikes down a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the mouth of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

This is also the procedure in the church as well:

Matthew 18:16 LSB

16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

John 8:17 LSB

17 “Even in your law it has been written that the witness of two men is true.

2 Corinthians 13:1 LSB

1 This is the third time I am coming to you. BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY MATTER SHALL BE CONFIRMED.

1 Timothy 5:19 LSB

19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.

The “trials” of Jesus shows us the level man can go in order to kill righteousness and suppress it, even by supposed legal procedures.

The Motive of the Leaders:

Mark 14:55 LSB

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.

Matthew 26:59 LSB

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.

This is important because of the illegality of this action.

We need to understand it in our day as well.

Caiaphas prophesied in John 11:48-53

John 11:48–53 LSB

“If we let Him go on like this, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.

This “prophecy” was a statement of fact that Jesus was going to carry out His plan to die for the people and draw many disciples after Him.

His death is preferable than the Romans taking away their nation, their business.

But this statement from Caiaphas was the purpose for condemning Jesus.

It was so that He could die and the Romans would leave them alone, not having this level of insurrection occurring any more.

The Mind of the Leaders:

Matthew 27:18 LSB

18 For he knew that because of envy they had delivered Him over.

Once Pilate realized that Jesus was not staging an insurrection, the conclusion was that Jesus was being hounded because of a matter of the heart-Jealousy.

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament φθόνος

**φθόνος, -ου, ὁ, [in LXX: Wi 2:24; 6:23, 1 Mac 8:16, 3 Mac 6:7*;] envy: Ro 1:29, Ga 5:21, 1 Ti 6:4, Tit 3:3, 1 Pe 2:1; διὰ φθόνον, Mt 27:18, Mk 15:10, Phl 1:15; πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τ. πνεῦμα (on the meaning, v. R, txt., mg. 1, 2; Hort, Ja., 93 f.), Ja 4:5.†

Realize that envy became the ultimately obvious condition of the mind and heart of the rulers of Jesus’ arrest and trial.

This condition of the heart drives the mind of the man in the flesh.

Consider:

1 Timothy 6:1–5 LSB

1 All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be slandered. 2 But those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brothers, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things. 3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words—those of our Lord Jesus Christ—and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited, understanding nothing but having a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

John 8:37 LSB

37 “I know that you are Abraham’s seed; yet you are seeking to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.

John 8:43 LSB

43 “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

John 8:47 LSB

47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

Conclusion:

What can we learn from Jesus and His trials?

Jesus’ trials shows us that they were a means of the will of God to be carried out.

Jesus’ trials were a clear display of the heart and motive of the wicked.

Jesus’ trials were a clear display of the heart and motive of the Son of God.