Very God, very human.

CHAPTER 9. TRIAL.
Thursday night and Friday morning.

9.1 INTERROGATION BEFORE ANNAS.
John 18:12-14 and 19-24

The “emergency” Court was not ready for its illegal night-time meeting; so Jesus was taken first to Annas - whose position was that of a kind of “High Priest Emeritus” and was regarded by some as still holding office. The Romans had appointed his son-in-law Caiaphas, and in fact they worked together.

So while Caiaphas was busy with the rushed preparations, Annas questioned the prisoner about His followers and His teaching. John was somewhere unobtrusive, listening in.

Jesus replied, “I always spoke openly in Synagogues or in the Temple. If you want to know what I said, ask those who heard me.” (If He had been defended by a modern British barrister, the response would have been much the same - “You are accusing my client of illegal statements. It is for the prosecution to bring evidence of those statements, not try to make Him incriminate Himself.”)

A Court official hit the prisoner and said, “How dare you answer the High Priest like that,” to which the quietly dignified reply was, “If I spoke wrongly, bring a charge, if not, why hit me.” It was only the beginning. Before the night was out the same quiet dignity was to be assailed by a great deal more than a slap in the face.

9.2 TRIAL BEFORE CAIAPHAS
Luke 22:66-71 Mark 14:53-64 Matthew 26:57-66
At last the court and false witnesses were ready. We can only imagine the pressure under which Caiaphas had been working . This court was not the true Jewish supreme court. Its meeting at night was illegal in itself (though they may have covered that technicality by waiting until the first crack of dawn) but much more serious was the hurried nature of the hearing. It broke all the rules laid down to ensure a proper defence. Worst of all it was packed with Caiaphas’ supporters - no sign of Gamaliel or Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. Its purpose was not to try the case but to get a conviction.

Even so, there had to be some pretence at justice and witnesses were brought in to make accusations. Their evidence had to be given separately and they had been hurriedly briefed. Their statements did not agree exactly enough to justify a charge.

The law required witnesses to agree before a charge was preferred. The case had not even begun and with no more accusers on hand, Jesus could (legally but not practically) have walked out free.

Caiaphas staked all on one bold venture. He said, “I adjure you by the living God,” that is put you on oath and order your to answer, “Tell us are you Messiah, the Son of God?”

A simple denial would have let Him off. If His claim had been misinterpreted, exaggerated or set up by others, now was His time to say so. But He confirmed His claim and they sentenced Him to death.


9.3 MOCKING
Luke 22:63-65 Mark 14:65 Matthew 26:67-68

People respond in various ways to a sudden release from fear. Jesus was now a prisoner, tried, condemned and unresisting. Suddenly He was not feared any more. And those who had feared Him revealed in an instant that there had been nothing of respect in their fear. They took the chance to mock Him for His claims to be a Prophet and to be Messiah. It seems that the mockers included some of the “council” and some of the guards. People can sink to the level of a rabble very quickly and this group was to be the nucleus of the rabble which shouted for His death an hour or two later.

This was the first mocking. Later both Herod and the Roman soldiers would deride His claim to kingship. That was what interested them. But these were religious mockers and what they derided was the seeming helplessness of one whose claim should have made Him great and powerful. They saw Prophets and Messiah as winners. Losers were subjects for contempt.


9.4 PILATE.
John 18:28 to 19:16. Luke 23:1-5 and 13-25. Mark 15:1-15 Matthew 27:1-2 and 11-26

At last Caiaphas could take Jesus to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, with the assurance that this prisoner had been tried and convicted by (what purported to be) the Supreme Court. All he needed was the governor’s approval of the death sentence.

Pilate was a cruel and despotic ruler with a string of atrocities to his name; but he had a certain pride in Roman justice and a dislike of being manipulated. Caiaphas was, in Pilate’s view, his own puppet ruler. Sometimes, however, there was doubt as to who was pulling the strings.

He was also influenced by his wife’s dream. Romans took dreams seriously as omens. Romans varied as to how seriously they took their wives, but Pilate’s wife was Claudia Procula, grand-daughter of Caesar Augustus and a VIP in Roman society.

Finally he seems to have been impressed by the personality of the prisoner. Quiet courage and self control in the face of suffering were characteristics Romans valued. The two men were similar in age, but different in almost every other respect, yet there was between them an inexplicable rapport; deep calling to deep.

It was early Friday morning and as the day was counted from sunset to sunset it was still the day of the passover. The priests had many religious duties yet to perform that day. This trial which had interrupted their evening and kept them busy all night was as inconvenient as could be. They hoped it would soon be over. Once the governor gave the word the prisoner would be taken into Roman hands.

They still feared the common people, but had high hopes now that Jesus would be on the cross, or at least under Roman guard, before the general population realised what was happening. If only Pilate would not delay.

Then the bombshell broke. Pilate came out to them and asked, “What is the charge against this prisoner?” He had decided to try the case again, himself.

Their reply, “If He were not a criminal we would not have brought Him to you,” was not quite as insolent as it sounds because they were relying on a conviction by their own court - a court which Pilate normally respected. But he would have none of it. “Take Him and judge Him under your law,” was a slap down. Only His death would satisfy them and only Pilate could authorise that.

So reluctantly, unprepared and unrehearsed, they put forward three charges; corrupting the people, forbidding Caesar’s tribute and claiming to be Messiah - a king. The first was vague, the second unconvincing. The third might have been more plausible if not preceded by the other two. They had no evidence to offer.

Pilate took Jesus into his own house for questioning, leaving the accusers outside because entry into a gentile house would defile them on Passover day.

It is John who records the conversation in detail. We can only surmise where he obtained his information - but there is one obvious possibility. John was present at the cross, standing there all day. So was a Roman centurion, the officer in charge of the execution who at the end declared “This man was innocent.” Whether or not that Centurion became a Christian, he may well have passed on his account of the hearing before Pilate. And there were others present who could have told what happened.

Jesus answered Pilate’s first questioning - it was later He remained silent. His answer to the charge of claiming kingship was clear enough. “Yes I am a king but my kingdom is not of this world. If it were my servants would be fighting. I came into the world to bear witness to Truth.”

Pilate asked “What is Truth” but had no problem reaching a verdict. The first two charges carried no conviction and were unsupported by witnesses. The third - claiming kingship - had been explained and answered. Kings of a spiritual realm were no rivals to Caesar.

So Pilate went back outside and announced the verdict. Not guilty.


First Compromise - Jesus sent to Herod.
(Luke 23:6-12)

The verdict met with a furious response from the waiting Priests.

Maybe by this time Caiaphas had begun to collect his mob - his own supporters, some of the guards who had been mocking Jesus, rabble gathered together from those who had come out early to watch for any executions. (Read British history to find the kind of people who used to crowd round to be entertained by the spectacle of a public hanging.) This mob would later be supplemented by Herod’s servants and guards, but it was not a sample of Common People. John who was watching states specifically that the shouting was led by “The Chief Priests and officers,” (John 19:6).

Suddenly Pilate was under pressure. His first responsibility was to maintain order. He had already provoked near revolt right at the beginning of his governorship. He did not want to do it again. The Chief Priests were Sadducees and willing to compromise with Rome - so he did not want to offend them.

“He has been a trouble maker - starting in Galilee and now here.”

Pilate saw a convenient escape. Herod was supposed to be responsible for two regions, his home ground in the south east and Galilee in the north west. Pilate asked if Jesus came from Galilee, knowing Herod was visiting Jerusalem at that time. His Jerusalem residence was near at hand.

“He is under Herod’s jurisdiction. Send Him to Herod.”

It looked like an easy way out. In fact it was the first step on the slippery road of compromise. He had already given his not guilty verdict. By sending Jesus to Herod he was accepting the possibility of another verdict.

So at last Herod and Jesus stood face to face. Herod had executed John the Baptist and Jesus had then defied him by moving into his south eastern territory. There, on Herod's doorstep, He had preached and drawn crowds. From there He had sent His defiant message (see 7.1).

Herod had held Him in superstitious fear, wanted to kill Him, wanted to meet Him and see a miracle. Now at last Jesus was brought before him as a prisoner and the Chief Priests came to accuse Him “vehemently” - ever conscious of time slipping away.

Herod tried to persuade Him to answer the charges and to perform a miracle. But Jesus had nothing to say to him. Herod’s story was finished. It had ended when he executed John the Baptist whose preaching could have brought him repentance and forgiveness and life. He had chosen his own damnation and there was nothing more to be said to him. So Jesus remained silent.

When he could get no answer out of Him, Herod mocked Jesus, put on Him a purple robe of royalty (one of his own cast-offs no doubt - purple cloth was expensive). Then he sent Him back to Pilate with all issues unresolved.

Second Compromise - suggestion of whipping.
Not only had the problem come back to Pilate, it had come back with redoubled force. On the one hand, his own not guilty verdict was confirmed, Herod had not convicted Jesus of anything. On the other hand, the mob was now there in full force, probably with Herod’s guards added. It looked like a dangerous crowd in an ugly mood.

Pilate saw the mob but failed to recognise what was really happening. Down the ages manipulators have worked with mobs - modern ones call it “public opinion” - and their methods do not change. They stimulate a small and limited group to back their ideas. Then they present that group as if it were a majority. The real majority stays away, silent. Finally the manipulators mix anger with clamour, presenting an image of a whole population full of indignation and outrage.

Pilate was frightened and struggling but had two alternatives to offer. The first was - “I will have Him flogged if you like, but then release Him.”

Roman rule was based in cruelty. Floggings were a normal feature of life. In Acts 22 we find a Roman officer who routinely ordered an untried prisoner to be whipped prior to interrogation, hoping perhaps that the lash might loosen the tongue. Cruelty was the norm. Pilate saw nothing strange in sending an innocent man to endure what today would be called extreme torture - simply to persuade the crowd to back down in its demand for His death.

But it did not work. The rabble rousers had done their job well and the clamour for execution continued.

Third Compromise - Jesus or Barabbas.
Before actually sending Jesus for whipping, Pilate tried one more compromise. He should have known it would fail.

Passover time was one when he routinely released one prisoner. He offered to release Jesus (unconvicted) or Barabbas (revolt and murder). Probably it was a bad move, especially if Barabbas was a Zealot rebel rather than a bandit. If this was so he might even have had supporters come to demand his release and these might have joined the mob. Even those who had no preference could be more easily manipulated by the Priests if they had someone to shout for.

The mob chose Barabbas.

Fourth Compromise - Actual Flogging.
Pilate had one card to play. He sent Jesus to the garrison for whipping. The idea was to present Him once more to the crowd, this time with His back covered in weals, pleading that He had been punished enough.

The men of the garrison had been brought up in a society which found its amusement in watching people fight to the death, others being thrown to lions or tortured. Cruelty was ingrained into Roman life. Given a man to whip, the job was done with maximum cruelty and enjoyment. Jesus was stripped, beaten, crowned with thorns and mocked, using the purple robe from Herod’s earlier mocking.

Then came the call from the governor - he wanted the prisoner back again, on the balcony to be shown to the crowd.

“Ecce Homo” - Behold the Man.
Pilate spoke Greek and may have learned some Aramaic, but his mother tongue was Latin and his thinking was conditioned by Roman culture.

He presented the mutilated prisoner to the mob with the words, “Behold the Man!” which to his Roman mind had the sense “Look here is Manhood.”

No doubt he had seen gladiators fight and kill and die. He had seen the occasional appeal to the crowd. Should a defeated fighter be slaughtered or spared? The Roman spectators gave the sign - thumbs down, kill - thumbs up, let him live.

There was never any question of pity. If a man was spared it was because he was respected, admired, approved for his courage. In Roman thinking courage was equated with manliness (In modern terms it is neither politically nor factually correct to attribute more courage to men than women, but ancient Rome saw men as valuable only if they demonstrated the “manly” virtues.)

So if Pilate had been addressing a Roman mob he would have presented Jesus with the words “Ecce Homo” and whatever language he spoke to this crowd, his own thought forms were still Roman.

His whole strategy was based on the confidence that Jesus would retain His quiet dignity even after a full scale flogging. Back in Rome that kind of courage might win over the crowd and so save the life of a wounded gladiator. He brought Jesus out to the balcony in front of the people and delivered his punch line. “Look, here is Manhood.” The prisoner did not let him down.

His Blood be on Us.
The mob, however, was neither Roman nor typically Jewish in character. The Jewish people were still in their homes celebrating the day of Passover. If Pilate had delayed the proceedings a little longer he might have heard the true Jewish voice and it would have shouted for its Messiah just as it had done five days earlier. The mob which said, “His blood be on us” had no right to speak for Judaism.

This was a manipulator’s mob, a selected crowd mixed with rabble. If most of them happened to be Jewish, this was merely because the action was taking place in Jerusalem. Jesus’ friends were Jews; so were His enemies. Caiaphas was a rogue who happened to be a Jew, but there are rogues in every nation and every nation has its uncaring rabble, its manipulated and angry “public opinion.” The Caiaphases of this world will always find mobs to help them get their way.

Down the ages anti-semitism has used the idea of corporate or hereditary guilt to blame later generations of Jews for the death of Christ. The real answer to this kind of cruel propaganda is that the whole idea of corporate guilt is false. Individuals are responsible for their actions. No one is responsible for their ancestors’ actions.

But the attempt to put false guilt on generations of Jewish people is wrong historically as well as morally. Caiaphas was not even the true High Priest but a puppet ruler put in place by the Romans. The Court which condemned Jesus was not the true Sanhedrin or Jewish supreme court. It was a “kangaroo court” - an improperly convened and illegally conducted meeting packed with Caiaphas’ supporters. And the mob was not the voice of the Jewish people.

If these are representative of anyone, they represent unprincipled politicians, unjust decision-makers and easily swayed but vocal demonstrators in all nations and ages.

“Do it Yourselves.”
Pilate was not quite finished. By this time the issue had become personal, Pilate had identified himself with his own campaign to set the prisoner free. His conduct was in sharp contrast to his previous record. He was the cruel despot who had mixed the blood of some Galileans with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1). This, however, was his first meeting with Jesus and he was reacting as thousands had already reacted, as millions have done since. Jesus had made a strong impression upon him.

He tried another ploy.

“Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find Him not guilty.”

No suggestion could have been more opposed to all Caiaphas wanted. He could get away with the rushed and illegal trial, he could bypass the will of the common people - but only if the eventual responsibility was with the Roman authorities. (In Acts 5:28 we find him saying to Peter, “You intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”)

If, however, the execution had been carried out by his own guards, even with Roman permission, he would have to answer for his actions twice over - to the common people and to the Sanhedrin. Furthermore involvement in an execution would “defile” the priests, and it was still Passover day.

This time Pilate had really shaken him - and time was moving on. Soon the news would break and real popular opinion could become involved.

Desperate, Caiaphas brought a new charge. “By our law He should die because He made Himself the Son of God.”

Justice defeated.
Suddenly Pilate was really frightened. He had been so impressed by the prisoner that He could believe almost anything - a son of the gods - that might just fit his Roman superstitions - but the Jews only had one God. He realised he was dealing with something bigger than he had ever imagined.

He took Jesus back into the house for more questioning. “Where do you come from?” - an urgent, worried question which did not expect the the answer “Nazareth” and feared it might be “Heaven.”

Jesus, however, knew that Pilate could not take any more. He lacked the moral fibre to win this case and needed to be spared any extra guilt. So Jesus remained silent.

Fear made Pilate’s voice sharp. “No answer! Don’t you realise I have authority to crucify or release you.” His very assertion of authority at that moment was an admission that it was slipping.

“You have no authority over me - only what is given you from above. Those who brought me to you have the greater sin.” Even Pilate knew now that Jesus was trying to spare him guilt. There was indeed a rapport between the two men, one which given different circumstances might have led to friendship, discipleship, transformation.

Pilate went out once more to plead with the accusers, but it was a last desperate plea of one already defeated. The Priests were prepared to throw everything at him now, they were desperate too. “If you release this man you are not Caesar’s friend,” a veiled threat to make trouble with Rome. “Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”

Pilate had already heard the defence on the charge of claiming kingship. He had already adjudicated on it. Kingship in a spiritual realm was no threat to Caesar. But it might look different in an official report to the emperor.

If Caiaphas is seen a representative of manipulative politicians, and the mob as representative of an easily-manipulated rabble, Pilate must take his place as representative of judges who allow decisions to be influenced by public pressure. There are plenty of Pilates in modern courts.

Beaten, Pilate resolved that he would at least humiliate the victors. He goaded them to the point of declaring, “We have no king but Caesar,” before at last giving way. And he wrote an inscription to put on the cross, “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.”


NEXT CHAPTER


LAST CHAPTER


RETURN TO MENU