Saturday 6-8-24 7th. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Sivan 1 5784 82nd. Spring Day
As they contemplated what to do, Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied that Jesus would die for the sins of the world (11:51-52). It was this prophecy that put in motion the plan to have Jesus put to death. John 11
Night of the Inquisition
After praying in the garden of Gethsemane, for probably a couple of hours, from about 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Jesus was taken prison approximately 11:00 PM that Tuesday night. First, we are told in John's gospel, that He was taken to the house of Annas, the former high priest who was still highly influential and powerful.
"Then the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound
him, and led him away to ANNAS FIRST; for he was father in law to Caiaphas,
which was the high priest that same year" (John 18:12-13).
While before Annas, Peter was accused by a damsel that kept the door of being one of Jesus' disciples, and he denied it -- his first denial (John 18:17-18). Jesus appearance before the interrogation of Annas must have been from about midnight till 1:00 or 2:00 AM in the morning. Then Annas sent him to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest.
"Now ANNAS had sent him bound unto CAIAPHAS the high priest" (John 18:24).
"And they that laid hold on Jesus led him away to CAIAPHAS the high priest, where
the scribes and the elders were assembled. . . Now the chief priests, and elders, and
all the counsel, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; but found
none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came
two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God,
and to build it in three days.
"And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it
which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest
answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether
thou be the Christ, the Son of God?
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye
see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what
further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What
think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his
face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands .. ." (Matt.
26:57-67).
The interrogation before Caiaphas at his home was more extensive, and probably lasted from about 2:00 AM to 4:00 AM. Both of these events occurred in the middle of the night. He appeared before Annas the high priest, and then Caiphas the high priest, during the middle of the night, and was interrogated in a virtual "kangaroo court," a "witch hunt" if there ever was one. While before Caiaphas, one of the officers became angered and struck Jesus. Jesus asked the guard, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" (John 18:23). The word "smitest" Jesus used is the Greek word dero and means "to skin, flay, or scourge," indicating He must have been hit with a rod -- in this case, a thin, flexibe whip-like cane which, upon striking the face, would bend and wrap around the face cutting into the flesh.
Take note of the fact that none of the false witnesses agreed with each other -- the whole trial was fast becoming an obvious "set up" -- and a disaster for the chief priests since no credible witness against Jesus could be found.
The entire proceedings of Jesus' trial were a mockery of justice. The religious leaders were desperate to condemn Jesus. Therefore they began the proceedings lateat night, which was contrary to Jewish law. Then they deliberately tried to frame Jesus by seeking false witnesses against Him. In Deuteronomy 17:6 and 7, we read that the testimony of at least two witnesses was needed in order to establish guilt. These testimonies had to agree in order to be valid. If the witnesses were found to be lying, they were to endure the sentence of the accused, according to Deuteronomy 19:15-19.
In Jesus' case the rulers were so intent on condemning Jesus that they intentionally sought false witnesses in addition to accepting the testimonies of witnesses who did not agree.
Another stipulation of Judean law was that once all the witnesses had testified and the council was considering the issue, at least one judge had to speak on behalf of the accused.
Jesus was never afforded an opportunity for His own defense.
Another discrepancy was regarding the charge itself. Jesus had never spoken of himself as the one to destroy the Holy Temple. Thus, this 'trial' was a total contradiction of justice. There is no doubt that it was meant to be a kangaroo court perpetrated by the highest religious leaders of the land!
Finally, exasperated, Caiaphas arose and demanded as high priest that Jesus tell them whether He was the Christ or not. Jesus answered in the affirmative, saying in effect that He was indeed, whereupon the high priest "rent his clothes."
Caiaphas tore his mantle in half, or as the King James Version says, '”rent his clothes.” This was an outer priestly garment or mantle symbolizing his authority. This custom of rending or tearing the mantle was an outward expression of extreme anger and grief. The Old Testament law, in Leviticus 10:6 and 21:10, forbad the high priest to do this, the penalty for doing so being DEATH.
By asking, “What further need have we of witnesses?” the high priest violated Jesus' right to further testimony by other witnesses, witnesses outside of Himself. Caiaphas quickly proclaimed the issue as being settled: Jesus was considered guilty of blasphemy. Caiaphas immediately called on the priests, elders, scribes, and Sanhedrin to declare their judgment. But the plain truth was, in actuality, these men had prejudged Jesus already as being guilty of blasphemy and therefore to suffer the penalty of death!
After this mockery of a "trial," a frame-up if there ever was one, in which due process was completely denied, and Jesus was falsely condemned. All of this was completely contrary to Jewish law. Haim Cohn, in The Trial and Death of Jesus, explains:
"It is [thought] that the high priest convened the Sanhedrin that night in his private
home; that there and then Jesus was tried under Jewish law on a charge of blasphemy;
that he was convicted of that offense upon his own confession; and that he was sentenced
to death. On the face of it, the theory appears incompatible with the following well-
established provisions of Jewish law.
A New Look At Jesus Last Week
Love, Walter And Debbie
Who Is Caiaphas in the Bible? 5 Interesting Facts - Bible Study Tools
Caiaphas (full name, Joseph Caiaphas), a Sadducee, operated as the Jewish high priest in the Jerusalem temple, and he presided over the Sanhedrinduring Jesus’ time on earth. As mandated by the Lord, only Aaron’s descendants could be true high priests, and Caiaphas and his father-in-law, Annas, were appointed … See moreAs they contemplated what to do, Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied that Jesus would die for the sins of the world (11:51-52). It was this prophecy that put in motion the plan to have Jesus put to death. John 11
Caiaphas
was the high priest during Jesus' ministry. He consulted frequently with his powerful father-in-law, Annas, who had previously served as high priest. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered in great fear to discuss Jesus' growing influence among the Jews. As they contemplated what to do, Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied that Jesus would die for the sins of the world (11:51-52). It was this prophecy that put in motion the plan to have Jesus put to death. When Jesus was arrested before his crucifixion, he was sent first to Annas and then to Caiaphas. As high priest and leader of the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas confirmed the charges against Jesus before handing him over to Pilate to be crucified. (John 11:49-52)Night of the Inquisition
After praying in the garden of Gethsemane, for probably a couple of hours, from about 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Jesus was taken prison approximately 11:00 PM that Tuesday night. First, we are told in John's gospel, that He was taken to the house of Annas, the former high priest who was still highly influential and powerful.
"Then the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound
him, and led him away to ANNAS FIRST; for he was father in law to Caiaphas,
which was the high priest that same year" (John 18:12-13).
While before Annas, Peter was accused by a damsel that kept the door of being one of Jesus' disciples, and he denied it -- his first denial (John 18:17-18). Jesus appearance before the interrogation of Annas must have been from about midnight till 1:00 or 2:00 AM in the morning. Then Annas sent him to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest.
"Now ANNAS had sent him bound unto CAIAPHAS the high priest" (John 18:24).
"And they that laid hold on Jesus led him away to CAIAPHAS the high priest, where
the scribes and the elders were assembled. . . Now the chief priests, and elders, and
all the counsel, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; but found
none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came
two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God,
and to build it in three days.
"And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it
which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest
answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether
thou be the Christ, the Son of God?
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye
see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what
further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What
think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his
face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands .. ." (Matt.
26:57-67).
The interrogation before Caiaphas at his home was more extensive, and probably lasted from about 2:00 AM to 4:00 AM. Both of these events occurred in the middle of the night. He appeared before Annas the high priest, and then Caiphas the high priest, during the middle of the night, and was interrogated in a virtual "kangaroo court," a "witch hunt" if there ever was one. While before Caiaphas, one of the officers became angered and struck Jesus. Jesus asked the guard, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" (John 18:23). The word "smitest" Jesus used is the Greek word dero and means "to skin, flay, or scourge," indicating He must have been hit with a rod -- in this case, a thin, flexibe whip-like cane which, upon striking the face, would bend and wrap around the face cutting into the flesh.
Take note of the fact that none of the false witnesses agreed with each other -- the whole trial was fast becoming an obvious "set up" -- and a disaster for the chief priests since no credible witness against Jesus could be found.
The entire proceedings of Jesus' trial were a mockery of justice. The religious leaders were desperate to condemn Jesus. Therefore they began the proceedings lateat night, which was contrary to Jewish law. Then they deliberately tried to frame Jesus by seeking false witnesses against Him. In Deuteronomy 17:6 and 7, we read that the testimony of at least two witnesses was needed in order to establish guilt. These testimonies had to agree in order to be valid. If the witnesses were found to be lying, they were to endure the sentence of the accused, according to Deuteronomy 19:15-19.
In Jesus' case the rulers were so intent on condemning Jesus that they intentionally sought false witnesses in addition to accepting the testimonies of witnesses who did not agree.
Another stipulation of Judean law was that once all the witnesses had testified and the council was considering the issue, at least one judge had to speak on behalf of the accused.
Jesus was never afforded an opportunity for His own defense.
Another discrepancy was regarding the charge itself. Jesus had never spoken of himself as the one to destroy the Holy Temple. Thus, this 'trial' was a total contradiction of justice. There is no doubt that it was meant to be a kangaroo court perpetrated by the highest religious leaders of the land!
Finally, exasperated, Caiaphas arose and demanded as high priest that Jesus tell them whether He was the Christ or not. Jesus answered in the affirmative, saying in effect that He was indeed, whereupon the high priest "rent his clothes."
Caiaphas tore his mantle in half, or as the King James Version says, '”rent his clothes.” This was an outer priestly garment or mantle symbolizing his authority. This custom of rending or tearing the mantle was an outward expression of extreme anger and grief. The Old Testament law, in Leviticus 10:6 and 21:10, forbad the high priest to do this, the penalty for doing so being DEATH.
By asking, “What further need have we of witnesses?” the high priest violated Jesus' right to further testimony by other witnesses, witnesses outside of Himself. Caiaphas quickly proclaimed the issue as being settled: Jesus was considered guilty of blasphemy. Caiaphas immediately called on the priests, elders, scribes, and Sanhedrin to declare their judgment. But the plain truth was, in actuality, these men had prejudged Jesus already as being guilty of blasphemy and therefore to suffer the penalty of death!
After this mockery of a "trial," a frame-up if there ever was one, in which due process was completely denied, and Jesus was falsely condemned. All of this was completely contrary to Jewish law. Haim Cohn, in The Trial and Death of Jesus, explains:
"It is [thought] that the high priest convened the Sanhedrin that night in his private
home; that there and then Jesus was tried under Jewish law on a charge of blasphemy;
that he was convicted of that offense upon his own confession; and that he was sentenced
to death. On the face of it, the theory appears incompatible with the following well-
established provisions of Jewish law.
A New Look At Jesus Last Week
Love, Walter And Debbie
Last edited: