59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered. Matthew 26: 59 – 66
The trial of Jesus was dominated by self-interest, that of the chief priests, Pilate and the crowd. However, without these vested interests, Jesus would never have been crucified.
Right from the start, the chief priests had no interest in justice, they wanted a conviction, a death penalty, their tools accusation and condemnation, the work of the devil. They hated that Jesus was leading the crowds away with his new teaching undermining their authority. There was nothing ‘just’ about this trial. From the beginning ‘they were looking for false evidence,’ knowing there was no other evidence which would convict. Various false witnesses came forward but to no avail. The greatest injustice in history was accomplished not by false witnesses but by the silence of the one condemned.
Frustrated by his silence, Jesus was charged under oath, and his own words achieved the chief priest’s aims. The Sanhedrin must have been delighted, the condemned convicted by his own words. The difficulty now was that the Jews were not permitted to execute anyone – only Romans could do that.
We can understand why, with kangaroo courts like this, unpopular Roman citizens could easily be convicted and executed. Instead, the Jews had to take Jesus to Pilate to get their desired outcome. Pilate took quite a bit more convincing because he could easily see that Jesus had done nothing wrong but rather ‘he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him’. (Matthew 27: 18). Pilate too was amazed that Jesus remained silent to the charges believing wrongly that he had the power to condemn or release Jesus.
So, in time honoured tradition Pilate passed the buck and asked the crowd who they would like released and who put to death. The crowd, easily led, also caved into self-interest. The chief priests and elders persuaded them, and they knew that not following their leaders would mean excommunication from the synagogue, exclusion from the social life, not the worship, of the community.
Pilate gave them one more chance, after all his wife had warned him, “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.” (Matthew 27: 19). The crowd declined the opportunity and Pilate’s last chance to do the right thing passed. Isn’t it fascinating that God gives even those convicting his innocent son to death a chance to turn back and do the right thing? No one can ever say to God, ‘I didn’t know. I had no choice.’
So, Pilate caved in 'When (he) saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” Matthew 27: 24. Uproar or riot on his watch would mean a recall to Rome in disgrace, and self- interest dictated the outcome.
A fair trial and Jesus would never have been convicted and put to death. Instead, self-interest won the day and Jesus was handed over to be flogged and crucified.
No comments:
Post a Comment