(by Fr. Wall, based on the brothers Lemanns)

Continued

In this, the last of our series of articles examining the trial of our Lord in his Passion we conclude the hearing before Caiphas which we left unfinished last time. Caiphas has so far failed in any attempt to bring forward witnesses or indeed any charge against our Lord. In his final examination of our Lord he adjures him by the living God to tell the people if he is the Christ or not. Hence, he seems to have abandoned the quest for witnesses who can agree as to the charge or even the evidence to support it. And whereas the witnesses were not sworn to tell the truth Caiphas now illicitly requires it of the accused.

It seems at first sight a bizarre question because both answers in justice should lead to our Lord's acquittal since if he is not the Son of God there is no other accusation, and if he is, then they should all fall down and worship him. In this tribunal, however, both answers can only bring death since if our Lord denies being the Christ when he has explicitly taught as much throughout his public ministry, he will be condemned as an impostor. If he does claim to be the Messiah when they do not accept him as such he will be condemned for blasphemy.

At any rate if he does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the trial, nor the justice of those conducting it, Jesus nonetheless respects the Name of God on the lips of the High Priest despite the obvious treachery of the incumbent of the sacred office. He affirms that he is the Christ.

The result is remarkable. The High Priest rends his garments. This was, in fact, normally a sign of mourning for the Hebrews but it was expressly forbidden for the High Priest to do so since his clothing was the sign of the priesthood of God. Similarly his cry of 'blasphemy' is unjust on two counts. First, he is obliged to examine the claim before he pronounces on its veracity and secondly he may not prejudice the other judges by pronouncing his sentence first since the authority of the High Priest would preclude their dissent. At any rate, he then dispenses the tribunal from the need for witnesses and indeed of any further procedure although the law required at least seven questions with regard to the accused and his charge.

His appeal to the general assembly, what we would call the voice of the mob today, is a further irregularity since each member had to give his sentence individually in order. The idea of all shouting at the same time "He is worthy of death" is completely opposed to the Jewish law. First, the assembly only has the assertion of Caiphas to base its judgment on, secondly the sentence is pronounced immediately instead of waiting until the next day, the scribes do not count the votes for and against indeed, it seems there are no votes against.

It might be surmised that at least Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea would have registered their dissent considering the enormous number of irregularities in the procedures. That they say nothing is probably due to their absence - it is likely they would have refused to come to an illegal sitting of the Sanhedrin at night. If they were present their voices could have been silenced by the general press either by being shouted down or simply by being excluded from the proceedings. The Gospel, at any rate, gives us to believe that Joseph, at least, took no part in the unjust proceedings (Lk. 23; 50-1).

With that, the trial for the night is over and our Lord is handed over to the good pleasure of the soldiers of the temple and servants by whom he is wretchedly mishandled. Although there is no explicit condemnation of this in Jewish law it is nonetheless a scandalous breach of even common decency.

The next morning at dawn there is a further sitting. Probably to salve the consciences of any who might claim that a nocturnal sitting was invalid, Caiphas called this as soon as the sun was up (i.e. before the morning sacrifice); which is to say that it, too, is illicit. There was moreover obviously no question of reversing the sentence from the previous sitting but merely giving a semblance of legality for the sake of the people. No legal form is followed, however, merely the question regarding our Lord's divinity is posed once more so that the same condemnation can be pronounced. Once again our Lord clearly states his divinity and once again a sentence by general acclamation is given. Instead of legalising the proceedings of but a few hours ago the irregularities are compounded.

A cursory reading of the Gospel accounts of our Lord's 'trial' leaves even the casual reader with an uncomfortable feeling that all is not right. When one examines the procedures which should be followed, comparing them with what actually happened, and add to that the general character of the members of the Sanhedrin at the time (which we examined in the first of these articles) one can only be horrified at the travesty of justice that is committed. That this travesty is committed by his own people and by those of his people in whom he should have been able to have the greatest confidence must have been one of the most acute sufferings of our Lord in his Passion for the forgiveness of our sins.

The return of the Hebrews to the favour of God is one of the things which Tradition teaches is to happen before our Lord comes in glory to judge the living and the dead. May these articles in some way inspire continued prayer for the conversion of this people, once the chosen ones of God, who played such a crucial role in the dolorous Passion of our Lord.

The End

back to contents