I have always been somewhat puzzled by the reason why the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, condemned Jesus to death: blasphemy. When asked, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. So what? You may think the claim is nonsense but that does not make it blasphemy.
None of the messianic pretenders that arose in the first century faced legal action by the Sanhedrin for their pretention, much less was anyone else condemned for this reason. So what gives?
A book by Eckhard Schnabel (2018) gave me an opportunity to dig deeper into this matter.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST or listen to it as an AUDIO PODCAST
The Book
Jesus in Jerusalem: The Last Days is a strange book; I almost stopped reading it early on. It comes with more than 2000 endnotes. For each page of text, there is about half a page of notes. May I call this excessive?
In addition, the first section, almost a hundred pages, details what we know about everyone who played a role in the last week of Jesus, both individuals and groups. There are 72 of these. I did not find this material overly informative.
After dealing with “who”, the author proceeds to look at where, when (timeline of the week), and what (events of the week). Here, it gets a lot more worthwhile. The author puts much effort into harmonizing the various accounts on points where they appear to differ. And even more interesting is his take on the trial of Jesus.
Fair Trial?
The trial of Jesus by the chief priests seems to have consisted of three parts (so Schnabel 2018: 234). There was a preliminary enquiry before Annas, the former high priest and father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest in office (John 18:12-14, 19-24; John specifically refers to questions about his teaching). Then, there was a more formal investigation in front of Caiaphas at his home, with all or most of the Sanhedrin present. Finally, very early in the morning, there was a concluding session of the Sanhedrin in their official building, the Herodian Hall, right outside of the temple area (Schnabel 2018: 106, 125-7, 264f). The final session led to the formal verdict (Lk. 22:66-71; Mk. 15:1; Mt. 27:1).
It is not uncommon for scholars to argue that the trial was a farce or illegal, and that the Sanhedrin broke several of its own rules for such proceedings. Craig Keener, for instance, calls it “The Sanhedrin’s Mock Trial” (1993: Mk. 14:53-65).
Eckhard Schnabel disagrees (2018: 243-5, 251-6). If it were just a fake show trial with a pre-arranged outcome, then why did they work so hard to find an accusation that would stick and was in line with legal requirements (ibid.: 251-6)? By all appearances, they were at it for hours. They needed (and looked for) at least two witnesses who agreed. These witnesses had to be cross-examined on details; agreement needed to include aspects like when and where an alleged crime had been perpetrated (and witnessed). In a true show process, the witnesses would be prepared to agree in their testimony; not so here. The would-be judges come up empty.
In addition, it is not certain that all rules, as recorded much later, were already in place at this time. And Schnabel contends that several rules (such as not pronouncing a verdict on the same day as the interrogation but leaving at least one night in between) did not apply to some of the most serious crimes, including blasphemy and seduction (Schnabel 2018: 244).
Based on Leviticus 24:10-16 and Deuteronomy 13:5-18, these two crimes deserved capital punishment. Strictly speaking, in its original context, blasphemy consisted of cursing the divine name and seduction meant to lead Israel astray to worship other gods or to incite Israel to apostasy. However, their understanding had broadened somewhat to also cover seriously undermining Israel’s obedience to God and his law (Schnabel 2018: 261). Denouncing the temple or aiming to destroy it may therefore be considered a case of blasphemy and of leading Israel astray in this broader sense.
For reasons like these, although the proceedings were far from impartial and hardly a ‘fair’ trial, Schnabel does not consider the process a full-on miscarriage of justice; by and large, the rules were kept.
Fact is, precisely because of keeping the rules, the trial almost failed to accomplish its objective. Because, as we read in the gospels, they cannot get the witnesses to agree.
An Act of Desperation
The witnesses do not even agree on that latter issue, what Jesus had said about the temple, although this is the closest they get to a charge that would justify a condemnation. They may be sincere in believing that Jesus announced he would destroy the temple; we often don’t hear or remember accurately what was stated. But of course, Jesus never said that he would destroy the temple. In his prophecy about its coming destruction earlier in that final week, others would destroy the temple, not he (Mk. 13). Much earlier, he had claimed that he would rebuild “this temple” if they destroyed it. Although he meant his body, even if one misunderstood his intent, Jesus would still not have been the one out to destroy the temple (John 2:19-21).
The trial is coming off the rails. Caiaphas, the high priest, who is leading the proceedings, must have been aware of this. He steps in and interrogates Jesus directly:
And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” (Mk. 14:60 ESV)
But Jesus “remained silent and made no answer” (Mk. 14:61). Caiaphas feels forced to make a bold gamble; it is an act of desperation:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mk. 14:61 ESV)
If at this point Jesus would have continued in silence, the case would have been over. No misconduct has been proven; they would have had to let him go. Or put the trial on hold to search for more witnesses. This would have been a serious risk, with thousands of Jesus’ followers in town.
But Jesus does not remain silent; he answers the question. And he gives Caiaphas more than he had dared to hope for:
And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mk. 14:62 ESV)
This, and this only, leads to his condemnation. But why is it blasphemy? Well, it is not in a strictly literal sense (cursing God’s name). However, Jesus is redefining what Christ (or Messiah) means: he is more than a mere human, mortal Messiah who is ‘son’ of God only in some non-literal sense; that might have been permissible. Jesus combines the “Son of Man” from Daniel 7:13f, 27 (not an obvious messianic passage) with Psalm 110:1. He sees himself side by side with God, on the same level; that is too much.
(In passing: it also means Jesus turned the table on them. He makes it sound as if, in reality, they are on trial, and he is the judge.)
In a broader sense of the word, this is blasphemy indeed. Who does Jesus think he is? God? Blasphemy!
Unless it is true.
To Pilate
The Sanhedrin needs Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, to approve their verdict. This turns out to be harder than expected; Pilate offers resistance.
And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” (Lk. 23:2 ESV; notice that the second charge is entirely false: Jesus never forbade this; on the contrary: Mk. 12:14-17)
The chief priests are attempting to ‘translate’ the Jewish crimes of seduction and blasphemy into terms Pilate would understand. A ‘religious’ transgression is politicized: seduction is turned into sedition (that is, incitement to revolt). Of most interest to Rome is the claim of kingship. Jesus had indeed agreed to being the Christ, that is, the coming king; the charge is not without truth.
So Pilate asks Jesus point blank: “Are you the King of the Jews?” And Jesus answers, “You have said so” (Mk. 15:2). Does that mean yes? Does it mean: those are the terms and categories you think in, but I don’t? The longer version of the conversation in John 18:32-38 suggests the latter: Jesus explains that his kingdom is not of this world. As a result, Pilate sees no threat in Jesus to Roman order, and persistently seeks to let him go.
After some back and forth, the accusers switch tactic:
The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” (John 19:7 ESV)
If Pilate won’t condemn Jesus as a would-be king, maybe he will grant them to follow their own law. The Jews are more concerned about the alleged blasphemy than about the messianic claim anyway. But this does not sway Pilate. The accusers therefore resort to their trump card:
The Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.” (John 19:12 ESV)
This means red alert for Pilate; he caves in. There is a real risk that the Jews will send an embassy to Rome with a formal complaint, something that did happen later in his career. He could not believably explain to the emperor that he had let a man claiming to be king of Israel walk free. Ironically, it is this part of the charge brought against Jesus, not blasphemy, but that he claims to be King Messiah, that holds up. He is crucified on this ground, as the inscription on the cross indicates: “King of the Jews” (John 19:19f; Mk. 15:26).
The King of the Jews
Thus, Jesus was crucified as king of the Jews: to the Romans, an act of sedition, to the Jews, because of its added meaning, a blasphemous claim that was leading Israelites astray, away from God.
But what if it is true? And what if God disagrees with the human judges, overrules their verdict, and steps in to reverse the inflicted punishment (of execution) through resurrection? And perhaps even seats Jesus in a position of power at this right hand?
Na… what are the odds of that!?
Attribution (in Order of Appearance)
Weglinde. 2015. “Jesus is led away after Pontius Pilate has delivered his verdict” <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_led_away_from_Pontius_Pilate.JPG> [accessed 24 August 2021] CC0 1.0
Botaurus. 2012. “He is guilty of death” by Vasily Polenov <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_-_%D0%9E%D0%BD_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%B2_%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8.jpg> [accessed 24 August 2021] Public Domain
Gandvik. 2015. “Jesus Before Pilate, First Interview” by James Tissot <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_Before_Pilate,_First_Interview.jpg> [accessed 24 August 2021] Public Domain
geralt. 2012 <https://pixabay.com/illustrations/cross-bridge-faith-sunset-religion-4364095/> [accessed 24 August 2021] CC0
References
All Bible quotations from: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles)
Keener, Craig S. 1993. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press)
Schnabel, Eckhard J. 2018. Jesus in Jerusalem: The Last Days (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.