Last page update: 16 June, 2019.
Please note the big button at the top left of this page contains a menu with pages not linked on this page.
Was His trial legal?
It’s often claimed Jesus trial was illegal because it didn’t follow Jewish law.
I think this article is a good example of that view -
- It was at night?
- “but in capital cases the trial takes place in daytime and the verdict is given in daytime.”
Tractate Sanhedrin VII page 71 -click - "A capital offense must be tried during the day and suspended at night"
Mishna in "Sanhedrin" Vol.1) - Because the verdict will be announced the next day
“while in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day.”
Tractate Sanhedrin VII page 71 -click - It was a festival
“Therefore such a case is not tried on the eve of a Sabbath or festival.”
Tractate Sanhedrin VII page 71 -click - No witnesses were called
- There were no real charges
- Sanhedrin members were legally disqualified
It was night?
While all of the above things are true it doesn’t mean there are no exceptions. There are as I will show; but first a few thoughts and observations.
The first hearing was from about 02:15 am -
I checked the time of dawn in Jerusalem for 25 years of Passover dates and the most early dawn is 03:41 am.
It’s a fact Jesus was interrogated during the dark hours, but that was likely a preliminary hearing because there was a hearing during daylight.
Luke 22:66 And when it was day, the rulers of the people came together, with the chief priests and the scribes, and they took him before their Sanhedrin, saying,
Conclusion: Law not broken
Because the verdict should be announced the next day
One thing is 100% sure, the legal proceedings spanned two days. The day starts at dawn not at dusk. Click
The legal proceedings can be split into 4 parts.
- Preliminary hearing(s) at night.
- Sanhedrin hearing in early morning. (13th)
- Jewish verdict in early morning. (14th)
- The events at Pilate; but those are not part of the Jewish trial.
About 2 hearings during daylight on different days -
Conclusion: Law not broken.
It was as festival
As shown above the first hearing was a day before Passover.
As shown above the second hearing was early morning of Passover day.
Conclusion: Law not broken.
No witnesses were called
AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto. [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'
Sanhedrin 43a -
Conclusion: Law not broken.
There were no real charges
Click
Conclusion: Law not broken.
Sanhedrin members were legally disqualified
Most certainly so. Many got their position by bribes.
Jesus was also personally on bad standing with many of the court. That disqualifies them as a witness. They even bribed Judas.
Conclusion: Law broken.
It takes only one error to make a trial illegal. But as I’ll show there is an exception to many of the above rules.
◊──────────────────◊──────────────────◊
Decision for the hour
In cases of extreme urgency, court can opt for “Decision of the hour”. That overrides all the rules. Yeah, even God’s rules as I will show. The only real point that could be argued about is, if it was really an extreme emergency.
Quote from Dor le dor, page 66-
What is especially difficult to explain is the matter of special rulings for particular occasions which the Talmud ascribes to a number of prophets who suspended or changed a commandment of the Torah on the basis of a 'special ruling' or 'decision for the hour.'
The classical example of this is Elijah on Mount Carmel. Thus the Talmud says:
- "Come and hear: Unto him ye shall hearken (Deut. 18: 15); even if he tells you, 'Transgress any of all the commandments of the Torah,' as in the case of Elijah on Mount Carmel, obey him in accordance with the needs of the hour" (Yebamoth 90b).
-
Thus we see that in special circumstances the Torah grants the prophet the authority to change the law. Elijah, by his illegal act, saved Israel from idolatry and brought them back to the worship of God.
We have a number of other examples of the prophets doing things that were contrary to the teachings of the Torah. In most instances the sages explained that these acts were not permanent abrogations of the law but merely 'a decision for the hour.' Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Chajes, in this book 'Torat Neviim', includes the following among the acts of the prophets that were in violation of the teachings of the Torah:
- Joshua had Achan put to death upon his own admission of guilt (Joshua 7:20-
25) despite the fact that the Torah requires the testimony of two witnesses.
-
Maimonides explains that this was 'a decision for the hour' (Mishnah Torah, Sanhedrin 18, 6). - Gideon offered a burnt-
offering with the wood of Asherah (Jud. 6:27). R. Aba b. Kahana said that eight things (which were contrary to the Torah) were permitted that night (Temura 28b). - David killed the Amalekite upon his own admission that he had killed Saul (II Srun. 1 :15).
-
Again Maimonides explains that this was 'a decision for the hour' (Mishnah Torah, Satthedrin 18, 6). - Elisha ordered every good tree of the Moabites to be felled (II Kings 3: 19) despite the commandment in the Torah not to cut down "the trees for food" of the enemy (Deut. 20:19-
20).
-
Maimonides explains that this was also 'a decision for the hour' (introduction to Seder Zeraim). R. Giddal said that when "Ezra praised the great God," (Neh. 8 :4-6}, he magnified Him by pronouncing the Ineffable Name. The Talmud explains that this was 'a decision for the hour' since it is forbidden to pronounce the Ineffable Name outside the limits of the Temple (Yoma 69b).
It thus appears clear that, according to our sages, the above acts of the prophets were not permanent abrogations of the law but merely 'decisions for .the moment.' They were decisions that were made in an emergency for 'the safeguarding of the cause' and were not to be taken as a precedent.
◊──────────────────◊──────────────────◊
It was charged that he was a preacher of turbulence and faction, that he flattered the poor and condemned the rich, that he denounced whole cities, that he gathered about him a rabble of harlots and drunkards under the pretense of reforming them; that he subverted the laws and institution of the Mosaic commonwealth, and in their place built up an unauthorized legislation of his own liking; that he had no regard for society, nor of religion, but commended the idolatrous Samaritan while he damned the holy priest and pious Levite. That he tore down the solemn sanctions of holy religion, did eat with publicans and sinners without washing his hands, disregarded all obligations of the Sabbath . . .These and many other charges were doubtless presented to the members of the Sanhedrin during the course of the trial.102 These charges are all true. The fact is they were combined into a single accusation, one that would seal his fate.
S. Srinivasa Aiyar
A final thing to consider; we are told all sort of things about the trial including that there a re false/contradicting witnesses, but why isn’t it mentioned the whole trial was illegal?