The Jewish System of Justice

The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, was ultimately both judge and jury in the trial. It was Pontius Pilate who handed down the most disgraceful judgement in history, one unparalleled in the history of justice.

Many individuals have been falsely convicted of a crime. In many instances, the trial has been a sham and the outcome predetermined. But nowhere in history has a judge condemned a prisoner on the basis that he was entirely innocent. This unique basis for the sentence of execution against Christ belongs to Pilate alone. Not only did Pilate declare Christ to be innocent, and offered this fact as the only basis upon which he sentenced Christ to the crucifixion; but he had judged Christ as innocent at two previous points in the trial.

Pilate had asked the rhetorical question,

To this question the Jews could offer no valid response. Pilate well knew the precise reason the Jewish ecclesiastical leadership desired to have Christ put to death:

Yet despite this travesty of justice on the part of both Pilate and the Sanhedrin, the Jews possessed, at the time of Christ, arguably the most enlightened judicial system in the history of the human race.

Many assume that the system was harsh, and that the meting out of severe punishments was commonplace. This was not so. Much of the following information is derived from the work of Taylor G. Bunch, Behold the Man, Southern Publishing Association, 1946.

The Sanhedrin consisted of seventy men. This number was based upon the number of advisors Moses selected to assist him in judgement. (Numbers 11:16) It was this body which tried those charged with capital crimes, for the Sanhedrin was invested with legislative, judicial, and executive authority. The quorum was twenty-three. Conviction could only be effected if there was a minimum majority of two. Further, there was a unique requirement that at least one of the judges must find the accused innocent. No punishment was possible when the decision was unanimous. This provision was made in order to minimize the possibility of collusion. It was felt essential that the accused have at least one advocate among the judges. Each member of the Sanhedrin took a solemn oath before delivering his verdict. He vowed that his verdict was his true conviction. When faithfully followed, this measure was designed to prevent any member falsely declaring a man innocent in order that the majority decision for conviction would be thus made valid.

The members of the Sanhedrin were selected from three categories of twenty-three members each—the priests, the scribes (rabbis), and the elders. The seventieth member was the High Priest. These three groups are cited in Scripture at the time of Christ’s arrest. The complement of seventy members was determined by the fact that at the time of Moses, God had appointed seventy elders to serve with Moses. (Exodus 24:1)

Luke also records these three groups of the Sanhedrin at the time of the trial.

There were ten basic qualifications for the eligibility of membership. Each member of the Sanhedrin must be a Hebrew, learned in the law, and possessing judicial experience at lower levels (there were minor Sanhedrins of twenty-three members which tried non-capital offenses in every town of 120 males or more). The member was required also to be learned in science, a linguist, modest, pious but strong and courageous, devoid of physical defects, a qualified tradesman, and, finally, he was required to be married and to be a father. Such qualifications were thought to ensure that not only were the members of the Sanhedrin competent, but that they were also compassionate.

There were rigid rules concerning the arrest of a person. As these requirements and others are discussed, occasion will be taken to refer to Scripture in order to document the level to which many, if not all, of these requirements were breached in the trial of our Savior.

First of all, arrests were not permitted to be made during the period of darkness. Yet Jesus’ arrest was made during the prohibited hours of the night, for it is recorded that,

The Sanhedrin was expected to adhere to the following Scriptural injunction,

Based upon this passage, the involvement of an accomplice in the judicial process was prohibited. In today’s terms, no accomplice could turn state witness. Today, many do this in order to selfishly seek a lighter sentence for themselves, while ensuring the conviction of, or a harsher sentence for, their erstwhile "friends." In times of religious persecution, such procedures are commonplace. Former fellow believers will become the witnesses against their brethren.

Even loved ones will turn state witnesses.

The Jews rightly prohibited such treachery, a policy modern judicial systems would do well to emulate, yet the members of the Sanhedrin gladly used one of Christ’s disciples to assist them in effecting His arrest, quite contrary to their own principles.

Bribery was also strictly forbidden.

Yet the bribing of Judas by the leaders of the Jews was openly demonstrated.

In this action, those false ecclesiastical leaders forfeited their hope of eternal life.

No arrest had legal status unless it was followed by a legal trial. Since Christ’s trial evidenced the ultimate in illegality, His arrest was quite improper. Further, it was illegal to bind an unconvicted man.

Another prohibition was the holding of any hearings prior to the trial, yet Christ was subjected to such a pre-trial hearing before Annas.

Further, quite properly, no punishment was permitted prior to conviction, yet Christ was assaulted during the preliminary inquiry before Annas.

The Hebrew system of justice differed markedly in the matters of prosecution and defense. Lawyers were not employed for these functions. The witnesses assumed the role of present-day prosecutors, and the members of the Sanhedrin conducted the defense. Such a system, if followed scrupulously, would have provided an experienced group of defense attorneys of high quality, a situation not always evident in the defense of the poor and indigent today. Further, it would have predisposed the members of the Sanhedrin to be compassionate when they altered their roles from defense lawyers to judges. It is little wonder, then, that the Mishna declared that if one individual was condemned to death every seven years, it was a "slaughterhouse," and even one execution in seventy years may be so described. Yet the trial of Christ was marked by the members of the Sanhedrin acting in the role of prosecutors themselves, and thus depriving Him of any defense assistance. The requirement that the judges should lean on the side of the defendant was totally abnegated.

In respect of witnesses, it was mandatory that a minimum of two be present, and that their testimony agree. False witnesses imperiled themselves. If convicted of an act of perjury, they were sentenced to the very penalty that had been sought against the accused. This law naturally daunted many evil men who would otherwise have sought to betray their fellow men. But in Christ’s trial, the Jewish leaders themselves diligently sought to find false witnesses—a shameful breach of the law. Mark records this vile betrayal of justice:

The failure to produce genuine witnesses who were in agreement as to the salient facts should have nullified the trial.

Jewish law stated that a prisoner’s own confession of guilt was inadmissible as evidence in his trial. What an enlightened law this was! Today, many a prisoner is convicted largely on his own confession, which has been extracted by various forms of coercion, including physical torture or psychological techniques.

One short passage in the gospel of Mark documents a number of breaches in these noble laws.

The following conclusions may be drawn from the above passage:

1. Christ was convicted of "blasphemy" on His own admission. Such "confession," even of a crime meriting punishment, was totally inadmissible evidence. Yet Caiaphas declared,

2. The high priest rent his clothes. It was a capital offense for a high priest to deliberately tear his raiment.

Thus, it was Caiaphas, not Christ, who merited death under the law.

3. The guilty decision was unanimous.

As stated earlier, Jewish law declared that no one could be convicted by an unanimous vote.

4. The condemnation of death was determined within a single day. Jewish law demanded a protracted procedure before the sentence of death could become final. Such a sentence could not be passed until the second afternoon of a trial. For this reason, no trial was permitted to be commenced on the Friday according to Jewish law, for that would entail the completion of the trial during the hours of the Holy Sabbath day. There was precisely laid down a procedure to be followed if a conviction was reached on the first day of the trial. The judges were directed into groups of five or six in order to discuss the decision. Following these discussions, they were dismissed, but required to walk to their homes two by two, arm in arm, searching for any grounds to declare the convicted one innocent. Upon the second day, they were required to pray and fast. Then a second vote was taken. Any judge who had voted the accused innocent on the previous day was forbidden to reverse his vote, but those who had voted guilty the previous day were at liberty to alter their vote.

The final decision was set down for sunset on the second day. If the judges confirmed their previous decision of guilt, the prisoner was then led away to be executed.

But even then, not all hope for the prisoner was extinct. A man was sent forth on horseback carrying a banner which publicly sought from the crowd which followed the prisoner to his place of execution, any evidence of innocence which they could supply.

Christ’s short trial deprived Him of all these strenuous efforts to proclaim His innocence, to which, by law, He was entitled.

5. There was a specific form of balloting which was required. The most junior members of the Sanhedrin were required to cast their votes first, lest they be influenced by the votes of the more senior members. In Christ’s conviction, this method of balloting was set aside. Caiaphas simply put the question to the members of the Sanhedrin as a whole, and they replied orally, apparently in near unison.

Another matter requires examination. Judges were strictly forbidden to originate charges. This requirement is a self-evident element of justice. Yet, on at least three occasions prior to Christ’s trial, the Sanhedrin had discussed ploys to convict Christ.

Manifestly, in Christ’s trial, the judges were also schemers against His person. That entire evidence finds them totally lacking in impartiality. Bias was written on their every action. Since the members of the Sanhedrin were charged with the responsibility to act as Christ’s defense counsels as well as His judge, there was no possibility of His acquittal.

As set forth in Jewish law, the Hebrew judicial system displayed a level of justice unparalleled in history. As implemented in the trial of Christ, this same system reached a level of injustice so debased and vile that it has never been equalled by even the least just, totalitarian nations of this world.

The trial and conviction of Christ by ecclesiastical judges indicates that level of injustice meted out, when prelates, priests, and clergymen, unsanctified of heart, possess hatred against those who serve Christ with the entire heart and refuse to submit to unscriptural demands enacted by religious leaders.

In view of this fact, the words of Jesus are pregnant with meaning for His faithful children today.

Thus have the opponents of the Christian message destroyed the religious liberty of the righteous in the past. Thus will they destroy it once more in the future.

God’s principles of justice were succinctly expressed early in the history of the children of Israel.

Pathetically, the leaders of God’s Church at the time of the first Advent chose to ignore these principles. Dare the religious leaders of today follow their example at this time of the second Advent?