Touching Malchus’ ear to heal him apparently wasn’t enough to get the arresting officers to move forward to apprehend Jesus, so he comments to them, “Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.” JTC comments, “But, though surrendering Himself unresistingly, Jesus was not unmindful of His rights; and to the priestly officials, chief priests, captain of the temple guard, and elders of the people who were present, He voiced this interrogative protest against the illegal night seizure.”
This reminds me of the time that the Jewish elders brought the woman who was taken in adultery to Jesus to be judged. At that time, the men had just thrown her at Jesus’ feet for a condemnation, but we talked about the strict laws and protocols that were active in ancient Judaism. Jesus ensured that the woman was formally charged and that witnesses were given the chance to speak. Like the woman, no formal charges were ever brought against the Savior, so he wasn’t as much “arrested” as he was “kidnapped.” With an illegal arrest, the trial should have been declared a mistrial, as would happen in our own modern era. And the fact that there were no formal charges means that there really was no “trial,” only a bunch of people shouting personal questions at him.
In an article explaining the illegality of Jesus’ trial, rcg.org cites the “Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews” as saying, “The testimony of an accomplice (in this face, Judas) is not permissible by Rabbinic law… and no man’s life, not his liberty, not his reputation can be endangered by the malice of the one who has confessed himself a criminal.” The article further explains that because Judas took a bribe and because the chief priests were the ones who gave him that bribe, then all those parties are criminals and therefore can not “endanger” Jesus’ life, liberty or reputation with accusations. Furthermore, the article explains that because the chief priests and those who worked for them by arresting Jesus, were prejudice against him, they were prohibited by law from being involved in his trial, which of course they were. The article also points out that by law, the Sanhedrin were forbidden to bring charges against someone because they then wouldn’t be impartial. It would be like the Supreme Court pressing charges against someone and then trying the case themselves.
But a fair trial was never the point, was it? The chief priests knew that Jesus had committed no crime, that’s why they had him arrested and tried in the middle of the night, so that there would be no opposition, and the common people, who loved Jesus, wouldn’t have known what was going on. And Jesus had never intended to survive the night anyway. Maybe taking their queues from Jesus telling the officers to let them go, or maybe recalling his prediction from earlier, all the disciples with him “all forsook him, and fled.” The IM says, “Though Jesus Christ was powerful enough to defend Himself against the armed multitude, the disciples saw that He did not intend to do so, and they fled in fear. Mark included the detail about the young man who, wrapped in a linen cloth, followed the Savior until several members of the multitude ‘laid hold on him,’ causing him to leave the linen cloth in their hands. The Joseph Smith Translation says that the young man was a disciple of Jesus Christ. Among other things, this account shows that Jesus was forsaken by His disciples and left alone to face the cruelties that lay ahead.”
Comments
Post a Comment