Download The PRICE HE PAID FOR OUR REDEMPTION: LEGAL ANALYSIS

The PRICE HE PAID FOR OUR REDEMPTION: LEGAL ANALYSIS
Introduction
The trial of Jesus was a legal matter which took place in a legal setting through a formal judicial
procedure. The event is widely told from a non-legal perspective alluding to the fact that the
writers of the four gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were laymen who were
inspired to write and did so from their individual points of view. The movie, “Passion of the
Christ” by Mel Gibson, could be acclaimed as the most common contemporary Arts attempts to
narrate the event. A close watch of that movie reveals just scanty information about the scope
and vehemence of the judicial landscape and the gravity of the prosecution which paved way
for the justification (by faith) and redemption of mankind.
It is therefore expedient to study the account from a legal point of view which will shed light on
our understanding and appreciation of Jesus’ sufferings for a universal human course. Indeed
his prosecution changed the entire course of human history.
My aim is that this knowledge becomes beneficial to the growth of our faith.
Background to the legal setting which had great bearing on Jesus’ trial
Jesus was born during the era of Roman colonization of the Jews. Colonial rule in the Jewish
territory could be traced back to 63 B.C when Pompey of Rome conquered Judea and made the
entire region a province of the Roman Empire. The direct impact on the Jews was that their
system of government now became subject and accountable to the Roman jurisdiction. Several
instances show the loss of their political, administrative and legal power since the entire region
came under indirect rule administered by Roman governors appointed from Rome. The Jews
became mere subjects to the Romans so did their laws and politics. For instance, the institution
of the Sanhedrin which is widely believed to have started from the time of Moses (Numbers
11:16-17) as both a legislative-Parliament- and judicial body-Court- to effect the administration
of the Israelites lost a significant proportion of its former scope and functions under Roman
power. The Sanhedrin had little or no more right to conduct cases at law in their own
assemblies. They could largely hear disputes focused on arbitration. They had no right to pass
capital punishment. It is believed that they had lost this power forty years before the
destruction of the temple in the war against Titus (Destruction of the second Temple according
to Talmud account). The narrative in Luke 20:20-26 about paying taxes to Caesar indicate that
the currency had been changed by the Romans because at the time of Jesus, Caesar’s portrait
and inscription appeared on the denarius.
Even before Jesus was born Caesar had made significant changes in the administration of Judea.
1
One of such was the separation of powers making the ecclesiastical priestly office quite distinct
from the civil administrative office. The priest at the time was Hyrcanus while Antipater solely
became the civil governor. Due to this turn of event not only the Sanhedrin but also the Jewish
priest had little or no judicial and political function, his role remained ecclesiastical.
Antipater then appointed his sons governors; one became governor of Jerusalem and the other
governor in Galilee who later became known as Herod the Great.
Gradually the Jews engaged in immense political and diplomatic scramble with the Romans
signing treaties and making petitions to clear the road to self-determination and independence.
Though the move was systematic, it yielded fruits through treaties and legal battles from time
to time.
Charges brought against Jesus and the areas of law covering them
Two distinct charges were brought against Jesus. The first one was an ecclesiastical charge of
blasphemy. Heresy or false prophesy is also interchanged with the word blasphemy. The second
charge was the charge of treason. In the eyes of the Jews the vital accusation against Jesus was
that of heresy. In the eyes of the Romans the relevant charge was treason.
On the charge of blasphemy the synoptic gospels clearly state the emphasis of the high priest
questioning Jesus whether he is the Christ, Son of God.
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 Christ [Messiah], the son of God.” “Yes it is as you say,” Jesus replied.
“But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the
Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 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.” What do you think? “He is worthy of death they answered.”
(Matthew 26:63-66; Mark 14:61-64; Luke 22:66-71)
By identifying himself as the Christ, Son of the Most High God, the Sanhedrin (the prosecution)
might have deemed this as constituting an evil and profane speaking of God’s name or
attributes.
On the charge of treason the four gospel accounts indicate the emphasis of Pilate focusing on
the question whether Jesus is the king of the Jews.
Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of
the Jews?” “Yes it is as you say” Jesus replied. (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John
2
18:33-37)
Jurisdictions under which those charges were heard
The two questionings above present two central views:
Jesus was tried formally by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy or false prophesies under Jewish law
and Jewish procedure, and he was convicted on those charges. The earliest case law for
blasphemy in scripture is traced back to the case in Leviticus 24:10-23 where an Israelite was
convicted of the offence and stoned to death. The judgment in this case was formulated in a
general law as seen in verses 15 and 16. The underlying principle in this case is that anyone
(citizen or alien) who curses or reviles God must face the punishment of death penalty by
stoning. Jesus was not stoned to death because he was accused of another offence (treason)
which was not ecclesiastical and which carried much political weight to put him to death since it
was a crime against the superior Roman power at the time. Connecting this to prophesies about
the nature of death he would die (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53), putting him to death by stoning would
have contracted the entire prophesy that he would die by crucifixion.
So after being tried by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy he was also tried under Roman procedure
on the charge of treason advanced by the Sanhedrin. In the time of Jesus the Roman Penal Law
on treason was the one proposed by Augustus known as the Julian Law of Treason (Justinian’s
Digest). The elements of the offence included the following: the act must be harmful to the
welfare of the Roman people or must be contrary to their safety. It amounted to an injury to the
name of the Roman people. For most modern constitutions examples of such acts include
waging war against the state, aiding or abetting enemies of the state, staging or partaking in
insurrection, and so forth. Under the Roman Penal Code treason received capital punishment
through the death penalty. This is also the case for many modern systems today though some
have modified the system for life imprisonment.
Another view is that the proceedings before the Sanhedrin were just preliminary hearings
known as grand jury hearings and that they were conducted in order to present a charge before
the Roman Court. It thus advances that the Sanhedrin presented the charge and evidence to
Pilate and Pilate then conducted the trial according to Roman procedure. But this second view
would have only been the case if the two legal systems (Jewish and Roman) were harmonious
under one court system functioning through a court hierarchy known in modern times as
judicial president. There is no clear evidence to suggest that this was the arrangement under
that colonial era and logically speaking it would mean that the Sanhedrin must have knowledge
of the Roman Penal Law and vise versa. This view further contradicts the constitutional history
presented in the introduction above which suggests a gross limitation and suppression of Jewish
3
political and legal landscape under Roman reign. So I would discard this view and adopt the first.
Legality of the proceedings
Among the four gospels Luke seems to have given a more detail description of the formal
charges when the matter reached Pilate. His account shows that both the charge of blasphemy
and that of treason were formally brought up before Pilate. These were the charges:
Ecclesiastical charge“We have found this man subverting [or perverting] our nation.” (Luke 23:2)
This is an ecclesiastical charge of false prophesy or deception (heresy).
But the Sanhedrin knew that Pilate would not convict Jesus on an ecclesiastical charge since that
was no offence under Roman Penal Law. So they maliciously brought up a treason indictment by
deliberately interpreting the admission of Jesus that he is the Messiah into a confession of
treason against the Roman Empire.
For them to succeed in making him guilty they needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
his recognition as the Messiah and a king was an extreme form of a new teaching and that it
was contrary to the decrees of Caesar. So they went further with this attempt:
He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king. (Luke 23:2)
But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teachings. He started in Galilee
and has come all the way here.” (Luke 23:5)
The accusation regarding taxation was so absurd because few days earlier they had attempted
to implicate Jesus on this point and he made a profound statement which justifies his
innocence.
“Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” He saw through their duplicity and said to them,
“Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” “Caesar,” they replied. He said
to them, then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. They were unable to
trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.
(Luke 20:22-26)
In the end the criminal conviction was treason which they deemed proven when Jesus admitted
with a “Yes it is as you say.”
A number of the fundamental principles of natural justice were abused by both the prosecution
(the Sanhedrin) and the judge and governor, Pilate (as well as Herod).
4
First, the Presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of natural justice stating that the
accused is deemed innocent until his innocence is disproved. The Latin equivalent would beEi incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat.
But the Sanhedrin immediately subjected Jesus to mockery, they spat upon him and lashed him
with their fists right after their own questioning before proceeding with the Roman trial. Mark
records that the decision was reached the next morning. (Mark 15:1) so they had started
beating him even before reaching a decision. Herod and his soldiers also engaged in similar
undue process by ridiculing and mocking him. (Luke 23:11)
Second, the prosecution (Sanhedrin) tampered with the evidence and unduly influenced the
witnesses. The entire council had a mission; they were looking for false evidence against Jesus
that would justify their intended action to put him to death. (Matthew 26:59) So if the teachers
of the law, chief priests and elders including the whole Sanhedrin had such a focal interest in the
case then that defiled another fundamental principle of natural justice which states that no
person should be a judge in a case in which they have an interest. The Latin equivalent is- Nemo
iudex in causa sua.
Third, the whole trial was masterminded out of envy and treachery, not out of any genuine
interest to put right a wrong. Even Pilate knew that Jesus was arrested out of envy. (Matthew
27:18)
Fourth, the testimonies of the witnesses were so flawed that they did not agree. (Mark 14:56)
Under normal circumstances the case should have been thrown out of court for lack of credible
evidence.
Fifth, Pilate compromised justice to suit the will of the public and the Sanhedrin. (Mark 15:15)
The circumstances surrounding the release of Barabbas show that Pilate knew about the
Sanhedrin rally to the public which influenced them to make a referendum resulting in their
preference to crucify Jesus and free Barabbas. Pilate could have used this opportunity to build a
good political image among his subjects who might have been displeased with the entire Roman
superiority and specifically his own very administration.
Legality of the verdict of death sentence
It is crucial to understand that the various forms and degrees of punishments in the Roman
Empire and provinces were determined on various grounds laid down by Law. Those who were
of lower position in the state and those who did not possess Roman citizenship received the
death penalty. These categories of people received the less humane forms of execution such as
crucifixion. (The execution of the Catiline for insurrection during the consulship of Cicero could
5
have been the earliest example of such practice).
Other penalties such as burning and being thrown to the beast in the amphitheatres or circuses
providing a spectacle for the people were practiced as ordinary penalties.
Therefore the legal status of Jesus which determined the scope and manner of his sentence
were first, a guilty conviction and second his citizenship. Jews was not a Roman but a burn and
raised Jew.
In the eyes of the law Jesus was duly convicted for an offence criminalized by the state. The law
holds that he pleaded guilty to the conviction and therefore deserved the prescribed capital
punishment of death and being not a Roman citizen, death by crucifixion.
Conclusion
The whole trial of Jesus Christ was a malicious architect of the Sanhedrin. They had long settled
the matter to put Jesus to death but since they were politically and legally restricted in their
powers they tried and succeeded to justify their action through the law of their Roman
superiors who carried out the execution.
Did the Sanhedrin believe that Jesus was (is) the Messiah? Did they believe that he was (is) a
king? If they believed he was then the conviction on the heresy charge was a mere disguise
bringing the accusation with no moral conscience. In the sight of the law this is a blatant abuse
of the law itself because they mislead the Court and brought mockery to justice.
If they did believe he was a king then the envy they had against him as recorded in scripture was
because he was a threat to their hypocritical and shameful personality which the very presence
of Jesus and his ministry undermined. Thus they chose to do away with him for their own
interest not that of the Roman law. This could also amount to misleading the Court and the
conscience of the law since they were not convinced that he did commit the offence.
One great lesson we can learn from this is that Jesus went to that legal battle not with the
intention to win the case and not with the intention to prove his innocence. He pleaded guilty
so that by his trial and sentence we may be justified. Having paid such a costly price and taken
the rightful position on the judgment seat he will on the Day of Judgment acquit all those who
believe that he is the Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of Lords.
Author
Morison Siaffa Gbaya
B.A Honours- History/Political Science- (Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone)
6
Master of Comparative Law-MCL- (Universität Mannheim/University of Adelaide)
Contact
+47 15730428299
www.musicpointoutreach.com
[email protected]
References
The Bible:
Exodus 18:13-26
Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17:8-13
Zachariah 11:12-13; Psalm 41:9
Book
Smith and Hohan’s, “Criminal Law” 13th edition David Ormerod
7