By: Vandie S. Nabie (SOK)
The Accused died at 3:00p.m. on Friday, 3rd April A.D 33.
The trial took place in the Council Hall (Bouleuterion) at the north-eastern end of Mount Zion. It was conducted under Jewish Law within which the authority to pass the death penalty was questionable. The Accused was first brought before Annas, the “High Priest”. He then sent Jesus on to the Council, manacled and under escort. The Sanhedrin met in special session at night not to try Jesus but to find grounds on which to formulate the indictment which would procure from the Roman Governor the condemnation of Jesus to summary execution. Some individuals have been drafted into the ‘impost’ and bribed to act as informers. But their statements were indecisive and contradictory. Jesus has been much more circumspect in his public utterances for any of his words to be used to establish that he was engaged in treasonable activities. The nearest indication offered by any of the witnesses was a cryptic remark he had made about the temple. “Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it”. The council was getting restive and anxious. At last, the High Priest intoned:
High Priest ……………….. Take the oath
Joseph of Arimathea…… Suffer them not to take an oath. The
hands of the impious should not
pollute the purity of the Torah, for an
oath is a divine asservation by which a
man implores the vengeance of heaven
if he doesn’t speak the truth.
High Priest………………… Are you the Messiah?
Jesus “Yes, I am”. “And hereafter you will see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven”.
This was enough for the Sadducean rulers. The High Priest imploded, howled and rent his tunic as a formal sign of sorrow.
High Priest “What further evidence do we need? You have heard his traitorous confession”.
By admitting that he was the Messiah, the rightful and foreordained king of Israel, Jesus has committed an offence not of God in Jewish Law but against Tiberius Caesar in Roman Law – the offence of “laesa maiestas” – violation of the emperor’s sovereignty. The authorities, not as Jews but as Roman subjects, acted as ‘delatores’ and inform against Jesus to Caesar’s representative. The punishment in mosaic law for blasphemy was stoning to death and an offence against the state decrees crucifixion.
As Early as possible on Friday morning, 3rd April A.D. 33, Jesus was brought before the Governor, Pontius Pilate.
The indictment formulated was in purely political terms:
“We have found this man subverting our nation, forbidding the payment of tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be the Messiah -the King”:
Joseph of Arimathea………. “The allegation does not admit of
treasonable sedition. How can
the coming messianic age be
made intelligible to a hearten
Roman official”? It is quite beyond
his comprehension.
Yes, he had entered Jerusalem during the week preceding the great festival of Passover. Yes, he commanded majestic presence.
Yes, he has aroused great fervor among many of the 300,000.00 pilgrims gathered in the city. Yes, he had preached at the temple and overturned the stores of merchants.
Pontius Pilate……………. “You are a king, then”, trying to get him to be more explicit.
Jesus “I am a King as you say.
I was born and came into this world to witness to this
truth. All who heed the truth listen to me”. Pilate was sure he was dealing with a man who was not in possession of his faculties or a deluded maniac. He jumped up and went out to the waiting accusers:
Pilate……… “I find nothing against this man”.
The chief priests were now in difficulties and realized that they would have to bring strong pressure on Pilate. The Governor insisted that the charges were frivolous. He would have Jesus flogged and then released in accordance with a Passover amnesty custom. But was he really King of the Jews- a direct threat to Roman authorities? The Roman governor was tempted to release his charge, for it was his custom to grant freedom to one prisoner during the Passover festivities. He, too, was rather afraid of the reaction of the prisoner’s followers if the death sentence was affirmed by the Roman Senate. He decided to pursue a novel judicial procedure, putting the vote to the gathered crowd of Jews.
He announced to the unruly throng that he found no fault in his custody but despite his charismatic appeal, the crowd showed no mercy and demanded, “crucify him, crucify him.”
Jesus was therefore sent to execution on nothing more than a public show of hands. To compound the treachery of this flagrant miscarriage, another prisoner, Barabbas, a known murderer, was freed instead. What spurred Pilate finally to give way was a threat of an even more sinister accusation: “If you free the man, you are no friend of Caesar. Whoever claims to be king is in opposition to Caesar”. Pilate could strike back by having their own charge posted on the cross: “Jesus the NAZOREAN, King of the Jews”. He refused obstinately to change the wording to “He said I am King of the Jews”.
At this stage, Nicodemus delivered his peroration:
“Such, my Governor, is the case now before you. Such is the evidence in support of this measure – evidence inadequate to prove a debt – impotent to deprive of a civil right – ridiculous to convict of the lowest offence – scandalous if brought forward to support a charge of the highest nature which the law knows – monstrous to ruin the honour. What shall I say then if this is the proof sought to be passed against this defenceless man? My most noble Leige, I pray you to pause. I do earnestly beseech you to take heed. You are standing upon the brink of a precipice – beware. Save the country, my Lord from the horror of this catastrophe – save yourselves from the peril – rescue the country of which you are the ornament, Save the Crown, which is in jeopardy, the aristocracy which is shaken – If he faces capital forfeit, his followers would only be annihilated, not destroyed. In obedience to human laws, we must observe the letter of the law where we can, without doing violence to the reason of the law: but where they cross each other, the charity of the law is to be preferred before its discipline, and the reason before the letter. We have marred our copy-book with blots, and the more the pity of it”.
Lazarus of Bethany – “Forsooth, looking for a capital crime in Jesus is akin to a blind man looking for a black hat in a dark room which is not there”.
Before his execution the condemned man was humiliated, verbally taunted and beaten by guards. He was forced at daybreak, heavily burdened to the place of execution, where he was nailed to a wooden cross of Imperial Caesar.
The Chief Priests had had their way. They have browbeaten the Governor into compliance. But they took no comfort from their victory. History records that within thirty-five years, the palaces of the nobility were sacked by mobs and the Chief Priests were hunted and murdered. Caiaphas was deposed by the Legate, Vitellius eager to conciliate the Jewish people by making concessions to national sentiment. Agrippa II deposed Annas from the priesthood after he had only been three months in office and Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome and removed from office.
The venality of Proceedings, whether judicial or quasi-judicial enshrined in the Latin maxim “fiat Justitia, ruat coelum” (Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall) dates back to antiquity. It has existed before Jesus, in his life and notoriously after his death. The plea “fiat Justitia, ruat coelum” is very expressive and graphic. When I was a student, I thought it has a respectable origin. I have since discovered that it was first used to excuse the most outrageous injustice. It comes from a story told by Seneca. (Dialogues, III, 18). Piso sentenced a soldier to death for the murder of Gaius. He ordered a centurion to execute the sentence. When the soldier was about to be executed, Gaius came forward himself alive and well. The centurion reported it to Piso. He sentenced all three to death. The soldier because he had already been sentenced. The centurion for disobeying orders. And Gaius for being the cause of the death of two innocent men. Piso excused it by the plea: “fiat Justitia, ruat coelum”.
If justice is done as in the case of the Jewish Authorities v. Jesus of Nazareth, (A.D. 33), the Heavens should not fall; they should rejoice.
In conclusion, I have rendered in dramatic form a portrait of the Passover Plot. If I have offended any persuasion, I am in mercy, to the faithful, I am deeply beholden and for this assembly, I must add my supplication for pardon. This would be taken as “Easter scholarly performance” cy’pres.