Procedures of the Trial Day 6

"I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogues, and in the temple where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret.  Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said" (John 18:20-21).

Hey Gang:  I pray by now you have stuck with me and are getting the true picture or how very foul the religious leaders were, while being used by Satan, in seeking to kill the Lord.  But, keep firmly implanted in your heads the tremendous love story that is the backdrop of  this whole experience - no trial, no crucifixion no resurrection means no forgiveness of sin for you and me.  There is no greater love than to lay down your life for those you love. 

Today we are going to look at the highpoints pertaining to the procedures of the trial.   Every trial before the Sanhedrin was really two trials:  One, the first day, including a vote, and a second on the succeeding day.  In the down time, between the two trials, the Sanhedrin members were to do some soul searching - not to find if they should convict but whether the person is guilty in the eyes of God. 

Each witness had to give a clear picture of all the issues pertaining to the trial and we learned there must be more than one.  If three witnesses and one differed in how they saw the crime, the accused was found not guilty.   Today we would call that ‘reasonable doubt.   Ben Matlock, of television fame, would have loved this aspect of Jewish court procedure. 

Another very significant point pertained to the Jewish trial procedure, no documentary evidence, nothing written could be introduced as evidence.  Eye witnesses were examined separately and not in the presence of each other.    There were no oaths - for an oath was repulsive to the Jews because they could not use the name of God.  

 

Prosecution and defense each presented their case, which was followed by arguments.  A very unique aspect of the argument stage was that all sitting in judgment remained perfectly still until someone got up to make an argument in favor of the accused.  When a favorable report was introduced, the arguments could begin, but only in relation to the favorable argument.  If no favorable comment, there could be no argument.  If the trial resumed, each time anyone spoke they had to give a valid reason for their attitude against the accused.

Sooooo, the point that stands out to me is that I sense Jesus would have approved the court procedures of that day, if they had not been contaminated by man’s manipulation of the law to suit his own purpose.  It was very much based on finding one thing good about a person. Unfortunately, at Jesus’ trial, there was no one, that night or in Pilate’s presence, who had anything favorable to say about Jesus.  Keep in mind the mob present at this trial was a stacked deck and under the influence of the Pharisee's. 

Tomorrow we will examine the verdict.

Blessings,

Gramps