The Illegalities of Jesus’ Religious and Civil Trials

By Laurna L. Berg

[Laurna L. Berg is a Bible teacher in Bedford, Texas.]

All four Gospels record information essential to understanding the sequence of events in the late evening and early morning hours between Jesus’ celebration of the Passover with His disciples and His crucifixion. Roman jurisprudence was renowned and has become foundational to Western civilization, and Jewish jurisprudence based on the Old Testament has been meticulously maintained and highly regarded. However, when these two systems were invoked in addressing the Jewish accusations brought against Jesus, the result was one of the most infamous trials in the history of humankind. Yet against this dark background of illegality, human treachery, and frailty, God providentially fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies. The religious and Roman trials were both necessary. Without the charge of the religious trial Pilate would probably not have taken action against Jesus that resulted in His crucifixion. And without the sentence of the civil trial Jesus would have been opposed by the Sanhedrin and perhaps stoned, but certainly not crucified.

The Jewish Religious Trials of Jesus

The First Jewish Religious Trial of Jesus

The first Jewish religious trial of Christ is recorded in John 18:13–23. Jesus was taken to the palace of Annas, a complex of buildings surrounding an open courtyard in the southwestern section of Jerusalem.[1] When Annas questioned Jesus about His disciples and His teaching, He replied that He had taught openly in the temple and synagogues, had spoken nothing in secret, and He pointed out that legally Annas should be questioning witnesses, not the accused. One of the religious officials then struck Jesus.

Annas had served as high priest from A.D. 6 to 15, until he was removed from office by Valerius Gratus for usurping Roman authority. According to Jewish law the high priest reigned for life. However, under Roman rule the Roman procurator authorized the appointment of the high priest.[2] Therefore Annas continued to exert tremendous influence personally[3] through the high priestly rule of his five sons,[4] his son-in-law Caiaphas (reigning high priest from A.D. 18 to 36), and his grandson.[5]

Numerous illegalities occurred during this preliminary religious trial. First, no trials were to occur before the morning sacrifice.[6] Second, all trials were to be public and secret trials were forbidden.[7] Third, all Sanhedrin trials were to be held in the Hall of Judgment in the temple area.[8] The account of Peter’s warming himself before the fire in the courtyard of the high priest with the officers and others present, before the rooster crowed, indicates that these events occurred at night and that the proceedings occurred privately in the compound of Annas and Caiaphas. Fourth, capital cases required a minimum of twenty-three judges,[9] and perhaps there may not have been a quorum present because of the late hour when Jesus was arrested. Fifth, the assumption of innocence until proven guilty was a hallmark of Jewish jurisprudence.[10]

Sixth, an accused person could not testify against himself.[11] Seventh, there were to be at least two or three witnesses, and their testimony had to be in perfect agreement (Deut. 17:6–7; 19:15–20). Eighth, the accused should not be mocked, beaten, or mistreated (Num. 35:9–34).[12] The regulations in Numbers 35 regarding the cities of refuge indicate that orderly legal procedure was to be followed in handling criminal cases. In a city of refuge the accused was afforded protection from mistreatment at the hands of the blood avenger until proven guilty by the testimony of two witnesses.

The Second Jewish Religious Trial of Jesus

The second Jewish religious trial of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 26:57–68; Mark 14:55–65; Luke 22:63–65; and John 18:24. Jesus was taken before Caiaphas, Annas’s son-in-law and the current high priest (A.D. 18-36).[13] Caiaphas, who had previously suggested that it would be expedient for one man to die for the people (John 11:47–53), had been gathering the scribes and elders together. The chief priests and the Sanhedrin[14] kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order to put Him to death. The Sanhedrin acted as the Jewish Supreme Court, which consisted of the current high priest, chief priests (rulers among the priesthood, including former high priests), elders (lay nobility), and leading scribes (lawyers and experts on the Law), for a total of seventy-one judges.[15] Presumably Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews and member of the Sanhedrin, who came to Jesus by night (John 3:1–21; 7:50–51; 19:39; Luke 22:66), and Joseph of Arimathea, a righteous man and member of the Sanhedrin, who buried Jesus (Matt. 27:57–60; Luke 23:50–53), were absent from these proceedings.

Many false witnesses came forward, and finally two agreed, saying, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’ ” The high priest then demanded that Jesus make a statement in His defense. Jesus refused to answer, thereby fulfilling Old Testament prophecy (Isa. 53:7), and not complying with their illegalities. Then the high priest placed Jesus under oath, declaring, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Jesus answered by alluding to Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13, which confirmed that He is the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 26:64), a fact that He said they would all recognize later at His second coming. The high priest and others present understood this to be blasphemy, and so the high priest tore his robes. They agreed that no further witnesses were necessary and declared the verdict: Christ was guilty of blasphemy. The penalty was declared: He was deserving of death. Then they spat in His face, beat Him with their fists, slapped Him, and mocked Him. Luke ironically noted that although they had found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, they were actually blaspheming against Him in their behavior and words (Luke 22:65).

Numerous illegalities occurred during this religious trial, in addition to those points already noted as having occurred in the preliminary religious trial. First, capital cases required that proper procedures be followed in the trial, beginning with arguments for acquittal (the defense presenting the case for innocence), and then followed by arguments for conviction (the prosecutors presenting the case for guilt).[16] In Christ’s case the arguments for guilt were presented first, and no arguments for innocence were presented. Second, all the Sanhedrin judges could argue in favor of acquittal, but not all could argue in favor of guilt.[17] Third, when the charge was blasphemy, guilt could be established only when the defendant had actually pronounced the very name of God.[18] Jesus had merely alluded to Psalm 110 and Daniel, although everyone present clearly understood His claim.[19] Fourth, a person could never be condemned on the basis of his own testimony alone, for the testimony of two or three witnesses was required (Deut. 17:6–7; 19:15–20). Fifth, each witness in a capital case was to be questioned individually and not in the presence of other witnesses.[20]

Sixth, each witness in a capital case was to be admonished by the judges that the blood of the accused (Jesus) would be held against those who falsely testified “to the end of time.”[21] Many witnesses testified falsely; however, the intent of the judges in Jesus’ trial was not to admonish the witnesses in seeking the truth but to secure two witnesses who agreed (Matt. 26:59–62; Mark 14:55–60). Seventh, the witnesses must be in agreement, for contradictions rendered their testimony invalid.[22] Mark ironically noted that even when two witnesses were finally secured to provide false testimony, they were not in agreement (14:56–59). Eighth, the verdict must be announced during the daytime and could not be announced at night.[23]

Ninth, in capital cases the trial and the verdict of guilt must not occur on the same day; therefore a verdict of guilt must be announced the following day.[24] Tenth, for this reason trials were not to be held on the eve of a Sabbath or other festival.[25] Eleventh, the sentence could not be announced at night.[26] Twelfth, a person condemned to death could not be beaten, scourged, or mistreated. Thirteenth, voting for the death penalty had to be conducted individually, beginning with the youngest, so the youngest would not be influenced by the voting of the elder members.[27]

The Third Jewish Religious Trial of Jesus

The third Jewish religious trial of Jesus is recorded in Mark 15:1a and Luke 22:66–71. This action was primarily an attempt to place a veneer of legality on the previous blatantly illegal proceedings. The chief priests, elders, scribes, and the whole council held a consultation early in the morning in the Sanhedrin council chamber, known as the Hall of Judgment or the Hall of Hewn Stone, within the temple complex.[28] They reconfirmed the charge of blasphemy, based on their questioning of Jesus and His personal testimony and without the confirmation of witnesses. The agreement was unanimous, and the entire group brought Jesus before Pilate.

Four illegalities were involved in this third religious trial: There were no witnesses, Jesus was condemned on His own testimony, no evidence was presented for either innocence or guilt, and the verdict was announced immediately without the required interval of one day.

The Roman Civil Trials of Jesus

The First Roman Civil Trial of Jesus

The first Roman civil trial of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 27:11–14; Mark 15:1b–5; Luke 23:1–7; and John 18:28–38. It occurred before Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea (A.D. 26-36), in the Praetorium in the Antonia Fortress,[29] adjacent to the temple complex, or alternately, in King Herod’s old palace on the west side of the city near the Jaffa gate.[30] Pilate, having released the Roman cohort to arrest Jesus the preceding evening, was apparently waiting. When they arrived, Pilate went out to them, and following Roman law he asked for the accusation. Judas, having committed suicide, was no longer available to make the specific charge to initiate the formal trial (Matt. 27:3–5; Acts 1:18). Therefore the Jewish leaders attempted to compel Pilate to sentence Jesus without a trial. Pilate, not having received a specific Roman accusation, informed them that they could try Jesus according to their Jewish Law. The Jewish leaders replied that they could not legally implement capital punishment, for that right had been exclusively secured by Rome.[31] This was in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy that signified that Jesus would die by crucifixion (Ps. 22:13–18; Isa. 52:13–53:12; John 18:32), for the standard means for Jewish capital punishment was stoning (Acts 7:54–60).[32]

Since Pilate did not consider blasphemy a capital crime (for Rome tolerated many religions), the Jewish leaders then charged Jesus with misleading the nation, forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be a king. Each of these accusations amounted to a charge of treason against Rome.[33] Hearing this accusation of treason, Pilate entered the Praetorium and asked Jesus whether He was the king of the Jews, that is, a competitor to Caesar. Jesus’ response convinced Pilate that Jesus was not a threat to Caesar, and Pilate went out again to the Jews and made his first declaration of Christ’s innocence (John 18:38). The chief priests and elders made numerous verbal accusations against Christ, and even Pilate was quite amazed at Jesus’ silence. Then when Pilate learned that Jesus was from Galilee, he decided to send Jesus to Herod Antipas, who had jurisdiction over Galilee and was in Jerusalem for Passover.

The primary Jewish illegality was replacing the religious change of blasphemy with the capital civil charge of treason. The primary Roman illegality was the failure of Pilate to release an innocent person.[34]

The Second Roman Civil Trial of Jesus

The second Roman civil trial of Jesus is recorded in Luke 23:8–12. Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 B.C.-A.D. 36), was the son of King Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.), who had authorized the massacre of the Bethlehem infants (Matt. 2:16–18). Herod Antipas had executed John the Baptist at the instigation of his wife Herodias, although Herod had enjoyed discussions with John and knew that John was a righteous man (14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Herod had even associated Jesus’ miraculous powers with the ministry of John the Baptist. Some time later Jesus, having been warned that Herod Antipas desired to kill Him, referred to Herod Antipas as “that fox” (Luke 13:31–32).

Pilate and Herod were enemies as a result of a series of altercations. First, early in Pilate’s rule he had brought military standards bearing the imperial image into Jerusalem, provoking widespread riots.[35] He was ultimately forced to remove the military standards. Second, Pilate constructed a twenty-five-meter aqueduct to provide additional water to Jerusalem from the highlands south of the city, and he raided the temple treasury to pay for the construction. Many Jews rioted in protest,[36] and Pilate’s soldiers killed many of the rioters. Third, Pilate introduced Roman gilded shields into Jerusalem, placing them in the palace of Herod the Great, and thereby desecrating Jerusalem and infuriating the people.

Herod Antipas and his three brothers complained to Pilate, who did nothing, and then to Emperor Tiberius, who instructed Pilate to remove the shields.[37] Fourth, Pilate’s soldiers had executed some Galilean worshipers and mingled their blood with their sacrifices in the temple courtyard (Luke 13:1). The intensity of animosity between Pilate and the Jews may be reflected in Philo’s comment that the Jews “exasperated Pilate to the greatest possible degree, as he feared lest they might go on an embassy to the Emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government—his corruptions, his acts of insolence, his rapine, his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity.”[38]

Pilate then authorized Jesus to be taken from the Roman Praetorium to Herod’s palace. Herod was glad to see Jesus, for he had heard about Him for some time and hoped to see Him perform a miracle. The chief priests and scribes continued accusing Jesus vehemently, and Herod questioned Him at some length. Yet Jesus remained silent. Herod and his soldiers treated Jesus with contempt, mocked Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe,[39] and returned Him to Pilate.

Legally no progress had been made in establishing a valid accusation to be brought before the Roman court.[40] Jesus had been mocked and mistreated a second time. In releasing Jesus back to Pilate, Herod effectively declared Jesus’ innocence. This event, while contributing to an incredible miscarriage of justice, actually helped establish friendship between Herod and Pilate.

The Third Roman Civil Trial of Jesus

The third and final Roman civil trial of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 27:15–26; Mark 15:6–15; Luke 23:13–25; and John 18:39–19:16.

It is notable that Pilate made numerous attempts to release Jesus, in addition to making three additional declarations of His innocence. Pilate told the assembled chief priests, Sanhedrin, and people that he and Herod had found Jesus innocent. Pilate then offered to release Jesus or Barabbas. Ironically Barabbas had been found guilty of insurrection against Rome, and Jesus had been found innocent. Pilate received a message from his wife,[41] telling him of her dream and warning him to have nothing to do with Jesus, who was a righteous man. Pilate again offered to release Jesus, but the crowd demanded the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.[42]

Pilate’s next attempt to release Jesus was a compromise in which he had Jesus scourged. Roman scourging was by means of a whip made of long leather thongs with bits of bone and metal attached to the ends. The victim’s clothing was removed, and two men, one on each side of the victim, performed the flogging. Jewish flogging was limited to thirty-nine stripes, but there was no limit to Roman flogging. The long thongs would wrap around the victim’s body, the flesh would be torn away, and prisoners often died from this punishment.[43] Isaiah 52:14 prophesied Jesus’ scourging, stating that He would be disfigured and unrecognizable.

After Jesus was scourged, mocked with a crown of thorns, and beaten, Pilate presented Jesus to the crowd, again declaring Jesus’ innocence, for Pilate found no fault in Him. But the crowd demanded His crucifixion. Pilate told them to do it themselves, and the Jews answered that Jesus should die because He claimed to be the Son of God. This new charge, perhaps in conjunction with his wife’s troubling dream, caused Pilate to fear. Pilate then interviewed Jesus again and made yet another attempt to release Jesus. Large, noisy, demanding crowds were not unusual in Judea.[44] However, this crowd charged Pilate with not being Caesar’s friend. Pilate had originally obtained his position of procurator through Sejanus;[45] however, Sejanus had been found guilty of treason and executed. Pilate was currently under investigation by Emperor Tiberius because of his association with Sejanus. Pilate had clashed with the Jews earlier, and complaints had been sent to Rome. His fear of the crowd’s threat was valid.

Pilate made a final offer to release their king, to which the chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” Pilate washed his hands[46] before the multitude, attempting to absolve himself of responsibility and declaring his innocence of Jesus’ righteous blood. Then all the people assumed responsibility for the death of Christ and answered, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” Pilate, the leading Roman official in Judea, then released Barabbas, a proven and convicted enemy of Rome, and delivered Jesus, who he recognized was no threat to Rome, to be crucified.

Legally the trial was a sham. The accusation was changed twice. There were no bona fide witnesses or testimony. No defense was presented. Jesus’ innocence was repeatedly declared by Pilate and Herod. Ironically there is an interesting word play on the names of Jesus and Barabbas, for Jesus[47] Barabbas (which means “Jesus, the son of the father”) was released while Jesus, the Son of the Father, was crucified in Barabbas’s place. The crowd’s demand for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus dramatically pictures the substitution of the innocent One dying in the place of the guilty, which is exactly what occurred on the cross (1 John 2:2).

Concluding Activities

The incredible impact of the events occurring during these few hours continued to reverberate within the lives of the individual participants.

Judas committed suicide after confessing, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4).

Pilate wrote an inscription that recorded the charge against Jesus in official Latin, current Greek, and vernacular Aramaic—“This is Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19)[48] —and had it nailed to the cross. He refused to change the wording to accommodate Jewish requests (John 19:21–22). Pilate granted permission for Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus’ body (v. 38), and he agreed to allow Roman soldiers to seal and guard the tomb in response to Jewish demand (Matt. 27:62–66).

Pilate later authorized his troops to attack and murder Samaritan pilgrims who were searching for golden objects from the tabernacle allegedly buried by Moses on Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans complained to Pilate’s superior, Vitellius, the Roman governor of Syria, resulting in Emperor Tiberius removing Pilate from office as procurator and recalling him to Rome in A.D. 36. Pilate was banished to Gaul where one tradition[49] indicates that he committed suicide. Other traditions[50] suggest Pilate repented before his death, that his wife became a Christian, that the Coptic church observes June 25 as a day honoring Pilate as a saint and martyr,[51] and that Mount Pilatus near Luzern, Switzerland, was the site of his death.[52]

At the urging of his wife Herodias, Herod Antipas traveled to Rome to seek the title of king in A.D. 39. He was betrayed by his nephew Herod Agrippa I and banished by Emperor Caligula to Lyons, France, where he died with Herodias in poverty.[53]

Annas, who had been the driving force behind the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Christ, also witnessed Peter and John defending their preaching of the gospel and the resurrection of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:6). After this, Annas is not mentioned again in Scripture.

Caiaphas, as high priest, was a Sadducee who strongly opposed the doctrine of resurrection. His bitter persecution of Peter and Paul before the Sanhedrin (v. 6), imprisonment of the apostles and persecution of the growing church (5:17–21, 27), stoning of Stephen (7:1), and authorization for the Pharisee Saul to pursue Christians in Damascus and return them to Jerusalem (9:1–2) all reveal his relentless character. While Caiaphas is not mentioned again in Scripture, his unwitting prophecy concerning the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ (John 11:49–50) was accurately fulfilled.

For the nation Israel one consequence of not pursuing justice was expulsion from the land of promise (Deut. 16:19–20). Many of that generation, including Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, elders, and people, perished in the devastation associated with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, in which the temple was destroyed and the Jews were dispersed worldwide (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). The Sanhedrin was permanently dissolved and ceased to exist after A.D. 70.[54]

Jesus was crucified and buried, and was resurrected on the third day. He appeared to many over a period of forty days and then ascended to the right hand of God in heaven. He will reign forever as King of kings, and one day every knee will bow before Him and every tongue confess that He is Lord (Phil. 2:11).

The disciples proclaimed the gospel and many died as martyrs for their faith. The gospel is still being proclaimed and believed today.

Conclusion

The Jewish and Roman trials of Jesus remain a gross distortion of justice, despite attempts to maintain a semblance of legality. Yet they were necessary, for without the charge of the religious trial, Pilate would probably not have taken action against Jesus that resulted in His crucifixion. And without the sentence of the civil trial, Jesus would have been opposed by the Sanhedrin, perhaps stoned, but certainly not crucified. The sovereign hand of God in providing Jesus as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world is clearly evident (1 John 2:2).

Notes

1. J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels: An Exegetical Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 573–75.
2. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 524.
3. Josephus wrote that during this period Israel was entrusted to the high priest (The Antiquities of the Jews 20.10).
4. F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969), 64 n. 33. Annas’s five sons and their period of officiating as high priest are as follows: Eleazar (A.D. 16-17), Jonathan (A.D. 36-37), Theophilus (A.D. 37-41), Matthias (A.D. 42-43), and Annas II (A.D. 61-62).
5. Ibid. Annas’s grandson was Matthias, son of Theophilus, who presided as high priest around A.D. 65-68.
6. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 4:1.
7. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 1:6.
8. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 11:2.
9. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 4:1.
10. Jewish law required two or three witnesses in agreement for conviction (Num. 5:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15), and Jewish courts were concerned about fairness and preventing a miscarriage of justice (“Sanhedrin,” in Tyndale Bible Dictionary, ed. Walter A. Elwell and Philip W. Comfort [Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001], 1166). Mishnah: Sanhedrin 6:5 addresses God’s concern in protecting the innocent: “If thus is the Omnipresent distressed on account of the blood of the wicked when it is shed, how much the more so on account of the blood of the righteous!” As Shepard writes, “A court is founded for meting out justice; and not to purposely work injustice” (The Christ of the Gospels, 580). Alfred Edersheim noted that Jesus had the “right to assume [innocence] before a nefarious judge, who sought to ensnare a victim, not to elicit the truth” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993], 853).
11. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 3:3–4. Extensive regulations are stated regarding the giving of testimony and the testing of witnesses, but there is no provision for the accused to testify against himself. When Annas questioned Jesus about His disciples and His teaching, He refused to testify against Himself. He asserted His rights by suggesting that Annas should direct questions to the witnesses and not to Him (John 18:19–20).
12. As Edersheim wrote, in Jewish Law “he who was condemned to death was not to be previously scourged” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 862).
13. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.2; 18.4.3.
14. Walter W. Wessel indicated that the “entire” Sanhedrin or “all” the Sanhedrin does not mean that all seventy-one members were present but that a quorum of at least twenty-three was present (“Mark,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:768). The three primary sources on the Sanhedrin are the New Testament records and the writings of Josephus, who made the first explicit reference to the Sanhedrin in a discussion of Antiochus III (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 12), and the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin, compiled around A.D. 200.
15. Elwell and Comfort, “Sanhedrin,” 1165–66; and D. A. Hagner, “Sanhedrin,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 5:272. See also Acts 4:5–6 and Mishnah: Sanhedrin 1:6; 4:3–4; 5:5.
16. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 4:1.
17. Ibid.
18. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 7:5.
19. Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53–65 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 28, 59, 197–209. Bock documents that the Jewish leaders would have understood blasphemy to include (a) attacks against the religious leaders who had been installed by God and were representative of Him, (b) attacks against the temple, and (c) verbal misuse of His name. In addition Jesus’ response indicated that they would see Him enthroned at the side of God, a position of honor and exaltation reserved for very few according to Jewish tradition, and that He shared authority with God to judge them in the future.
20. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 3:6. This method of questioning witnesses individually was also utilized in other situations (Mishnah: Rosh Hashshanah 2:6).
21. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 4:5. Those who provide false testimony should be put to death, according to Mishnah: Makkot 1:5.
22. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 5:2.
23. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 4:1.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Mishnah: Sanhedrin 4:2.
28. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels, 580.
29. Wessel, “Mark,” 775–76; and Johannes G. Vos, “Pilate,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 4:790. According to Wessel this is the traditional site shown to most visitors to Jerusalem.
30. Carson locates the trial before Pilate in Herod’s old palace, citing Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 20.5.3 and The Wars of the Jews 2.15.5, and Philo, Legatioad Gaium 38 (“Matthew,” 567). The word “Praetorium” could refer to a palace or a judicial or military seat. Wessel notes that the official residence of the Roman procurator was at Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast, and his residence on visits to Jerusalem would have been Herod’s palace (“Mark,” 773).
31. Bruce, New Testament History, 200. The Jewish stoning of Stephen and James were exceptions, possibly occurring between procuratorships, and such illegal activity threatened the removal of the high priest by the Romans for failure to maintain order in compliance with Roman regulations. Hagner noted that the Jewish Talmud (Sanhedrin 1:1; 7:2) recorded that the right of capital punishment was taken from Israel forty years before the temple was destroyed (“Sanhedrin,” 5:272). The common practice was that capital punishment was at the discretion of the provincial governor.
32. According to Mishnah: Sanhedrin 7:1 the four modes of execution available to the court in order of severity were stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation.
33. J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 471.
34. Roman injustice was demonstrated by Pilate choosing to crucify Jesus after having declared Him to be innocent numerous times in the trials (Matt. 27:24; Luke 23:4, 14, 20, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6, 12). Herod’s release of Christ demonstrated that he too found no guilt in Him (Luke 23:15). The consistent testimony of both of these leading Roman authorities was that Jesus was innocent. Pilate “acted in an unethical and immoral manner in that he did not release Christ even though he knew His innocence” (R. Larry Overstreet, “Roman Law and the Trial of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 [October-December 1978]: 332). After having declared Jesus innocent, “it would have been a gross perversion of Roman law for Pilate to sentence Jesus to death” (Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, 473). Frederic Louis Godet suggested that Pilate “felt repugnance at lending his power to a judicial murder” (A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, trans. M. D. Cusin (Edinburgh: Clark, n.d.), 2:319). “It was already a denial of justice to send Jesus to Herod after having acknowledged His innocence; it is a more flagrant one still to decree against Him, without any alleged reason, the penalty of scourging” (ibid., 323). Pilate demonstrated “all the cowardice of the judge who thus declines to act as the protector of innocence” (ibid., 326).
35. Josephus, The Jewish Wars 2.19.2–3; and idem, The Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1.
36. Josephus, The Jewish Wars 2.19.4; idem, The Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.29; and Vos, “Pilate,” 791.
37. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 38. Harold W. Hoehner has dated this event at A.D. 32 (“Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 131 [October-December 1974]: 344-45.
38. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 38.
39. Scarlet robes were worn by military officers, magistrates, kings, and emperors, and are mentioned in 2 Maccabees 12:35; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 5.1.10; and Herodotus 3.139 (discussing Darius the Great).
40. A. N. Sherwin-White discusses whether Antipas may have inherited the extraordinary Roman rights of extradition granted by Emperor Augustus to his father King Herod the Great (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [London: Oxford University Press, 1963], 28–31). See also Bruce, New Testament History, 202. It is more likely that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod as a courtesy to Herod and to absolve himself of responsibility.
41. It is possible that Pilate’s wife was present, for the Roman Senate allowed a provincial magistrate to be accompanied by his wife (Tacitus, Annals 3.33-35).
42. Josephus mentioned this custom of releasing a prisoner (The Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.3). Carson also notes that Mishnah: Pesahim 8:6 cited the same custom (“Matthew,” 568).
43. Wessel includes a medical description of Roman flogging, noting that victims of Roman floggings seldom survived (“Mark,” 775). See also Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, 474; and Josephus, TheJewish Wars 2.21.5; 6.5.3.
44. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 18.8.3.
45. Bruce (New Testament History, 201) and Carson (“Matthew,” 559–60) indicate that Sejanus fell from power and was executed on October 19, A.D. 31. Sejanus’s anti-Semitic proclivities have been extensively documented, as have Pilate’s cruel and insensitive actions (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 17.2.2; 17.3.1–2; and Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 38, Flaccum 1).
46. This was a Jewish custom (Deut. 21:6; Ps. 26:6), not a Roman one (Carson, “Matthew,” 570).
47. Bruce notes that several textual witnesses for Matthew 27:16–17 indicate that Barabbas’s first name was Jesus (New Testament History, 203).
48. Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, 482–83.
49. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.7.
50. Acta Pilati, 46 (fourth or fifth century A.D.), quoted in Vos, “Pilate,” 792.
51. Alexander Souter, “Pilate,” in Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1908; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 2:366.
52. A small chapel near the summit of Mount Pilatus commemorates Pilate’s conversion and death.
53. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 7.1-2; and idem, The Jewish Wars 2.9.6.
54. Hagner, “Sanhedrin,” 270.