Before the Sanhedrin

THE TRANSFER OF JESUS TO A SECULAR COURT

pdf

Dr. Paul Manuel—2016

The Sanhedrin considered Jesus' popularity a threat to its power, so the majority members of that body (Sadducees) ordered his arrest, put him on trial, and hoped a conviction by that body would be sufficiently convincing for the Roman authorities to order Jesus' execution.

The [Jewish authorities] led Jesus...to the palace of the Roman governor.... So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?" "If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you." Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the [Jewish authorities] objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled. (John 18:28-32)

The trial was a sham, with many elements that were not just irregular but illegal, elements that should have invalidated the court's decision, elements that never came up at Jesus' sentencing, which was by a secular authority. That shift in venue was perhaps the greatest travesty of justice because it put Jesus' life in gentile versus Jewish hands.¹ Nevertheless, it was an outcome that Jesus himself had anticipated:²

Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified." (Matt 20:17-19a)

For Jews to turn over willingly a fellow Jew to gentile authority was rare.³ More than that, it was contrary to Jewish law, which God ordained that His people might govern themselves. Moses established a court system to handle their legal affairs:⁴

I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you—as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials (Deut 1:15).

The reason for this distinction between a Jewish and gentile court is not concern that the latter would be corrupt or fail to render a fair verdict but that the basis for its legal system is false:

For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede (Deut 32:31).

It is perhaps for this reason Paul tells the Corinthian believers to handle their differences in-house:

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ...Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! (1 Cor 6:1-2, 4-6)

The Sanhedrin recognized its limited legal autonomy as well as the later rabbinic dictum, "the law of the land is the law" (b Ned 38a),⁵ and sought to exploit both in securing Jesus' execution.⁶ as the Jewish authorities admitted to Pilate, "we have no right to execute anyone" (John 8:31b).⁷ This recognition of secular authority was a regular and abiding understanding of Jewish law in such matters. According to a later rabbinic regulation, however, "it is prohibited to deliver a Jew... into the hands of non-Jews, even if he is wicked and a criminal" Shuichan Aruch (ChM 388.9; see n. 8 below).⁸ The sole exception (which the Sanhedrin would have claimed) is if he posed a danger to the community, and the only way to prevent that danger was for the secular authority to intervene:⁹

The chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.... If we let [Jesus] go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up.... "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." (John 11 :47a, 48-50)

By the time of Jesus' trial, it was probably just the Sadducees on the council who participated. The Pharisees (e.g., Nichodemus, Joseph of Arimathea) on the council might not have been as enthusiastic about condemning to death one of their own.¹⁰

The transfer of Jesus to a secular court was yet another injustice against the system God established for the good of His people. It is ironic that this travesty, which worked to Jesus' disadvantage worked to their advantage so that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13).

For a pdf including Bibliography and Endnotes, see here.