Our understanding of even the most familiar stories of the New Testament can be enhanced by applying knowledge and experience acquired in fields of study other than theology. As a law professor, I enjoy studying and lecturing about the early Jewish and Roman legal systems. It brings out many meaningful details in the story of the trial of Jesus. Take, for example, the events recorded in Matthew 26:59-64:

1.      The trial of Jesus was the most unjust, illegal trial in history. The term council (Matthew 26:59) refers to the Great Sanhedrin consisting of seventy-one men, including the high priest. Established in Jerusalem during the intertestamental period, the council was the highest court of Israel—the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court. These important Jewish leaders were supposed to be acting as impartial judges during Jesus’ trial. According to Matthew, however, they resorted to soliciting false testimony to convict Jesus (Matthew 26:59). They likely did so by bribing and assuring the witnesses that they would not be subject to any penalty for perjury. Under Jewish law, a false witness was supposed to be punished with the same penalty that was being sought for the defendant (Deuteronomy 19:16-19). In Jesus’ case, the false witnesses should have been sentenced to death for lying. Instead, they were encouraged to say anything that might incriminate Jesus.

Soliciting false witnesses was just one of many illegalities committed during Jesus’ trial. Under Jewish law a capital case was subject to strict legal procedures and evidentiary standards. Yet legal scholars estimate more than two dozen laws and procedures were ignored or violated during the trial of Jesus. There is only one plausible explanation for such an excessive number of judicial errors: the council members had already made up their minds. The trial was part of a larger plot to kill Jesus (Matthew 26:12; Luke 22:2; John 7:19; 8:37). Since the outcome was predetermined, there was little reason for the council to be concerned with legal safeguards.

2.      The trial of Jesus was one of the greatest proofs of Jesus' innocence. Under Jewish law, two credible witnesses were required to convict someone of a capital offense (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). Each witness was required to provide detailed testimony concerning exactly who said or did what as well as when and where. If the witness accounts did not agree in every particular, both testimonies were thrown out.

The fact that the council had so much difficulty soliciting false testimony against Jesus speaks volumes about the blameless life Jesus lived. According to Matthew, many individuals were willing to testify but none of them had anything incriminating to say against Jesus (Matthew 26:60). Eventually two false witnesses testified to what Jesus had purportedly said about destroying the temple (Matthew 26:60-61).

According to Mark’s account, “their testimonies did not agree” (Mark 14:56). One witness apparently testified that Jesus said He is “able to destroy the temple” (Matthew 26:60-61). The other witness, however, claimed Jesus said, “I will destroy this temple” (Mark 14:58). It was unclear from these witnesses whether Jesus said that He would destroy the temple or that He coulddestroy it and then rebuild it in three days. Furthermore, one witness alleged Jesus referred to “the temple” while the other quoted Jesus as saying “this temple.” While both likely presumed Jesus was speaking of the actual temple in Jerusalem, the second witness’s account leaves open the possibility that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and was referring to His own body as the temple in question. Given the contradictions in their accounts, their testimony should have been excluded and the case against Jesus dismissed. 

The most amazing thing about their testimony was that it was apparently the worst thing anyone, even Jesus’ enemies, could drudge up about Jesus. If Jesus had been a mere human, imagine the testimony that might have been elicited. Every misstatement He made in His public ministry would have been scrutinized; every public misstep would have been twisted into a felony case. Despite the relentless efforts of the council to solicit all manner of lies, this flawed testimony about a relatively harmless statement was the best evidence that could be mustered against Him. This alone is powerful evidence that Jesus was in fact the perfect Son of God.

3.      The trial of Jesus was further evidence of Jesus' sacrificial love for mankind. Because of the obvious discrepancies in their testimony, the two false witnesses were not credible enough to satisfy the legal burden of proof in the capital case against Jesus. Therefore, all Jesus had to do was remain silent and the Sanhedrin would have had no evidence to convict Him. The Jewish ecclesiastical rule in this regard was similar to our modern constitutional right against self-incrimination. In capital cases, the Jewish rule was later interpreted to go even further than the U.S. Constitution and prohibited a guilty verdict based solely on a defendant’s confession, even a voluntary confession (Mishnah Torah, Sanhedrin 18:6). Therefore, Jesus was well within His legal rights to remain quiet. For a time Jesus did remain silent in the face of His accusers (Matthew 26:63). In so doing, He not only demonstrated His knowledge of the law but also fulfilled Messianic prophesy (Isaiah 53:7).

However, Jesus loved the souls of men too much to invoke the first century equivalent of the Fifth Amendment. While men had no compunction about treating Jesus unjustly, He still willingly paid the ultimate price for them to satisfy God’s perfect justice. When pressed by the high priest about whether He was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus spoke the fatal words, “It is as you said” (Matthew 26:64). Instantly, the high priest construed Jesus’ statement as blasphemy, the penalty for which was death under Jewish law (Matthew 26:65-66). Of course, such a statement was only blasphemy if it were untrue. Yet, the chief priest and the rest of the council refused to entertain the possibility that Jesus was truly the Son of God. In the end, Jesus’ undeserved sentence was not only the result of the Jewish leaders’ refusal to acknowledge the law but was also the result of their refusal to acknowledge the Judge of all the earth who now sits at the right hand of God (Matthew 26:64; Acts 10:42; Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Today, men are still guilty of making the same mistakes. As Christians it is our responsibility to uphold both. We must fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) and continually confess before men that Jesus Christ is Lord (Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10).