The Secret Codes in Matthew: Examining Israel’s Messiah, Part 21: Matthew 26:31-27:36, by Kevin M. Williams
But that is far from what happens here. We read in Matthew 26:59, “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, in order that they might put Him to death.” This is Exhibit A, our first evidence against the court proceedings.
In (b) we read that all arguments in a capital crime must be made for acquittal, not conviction. But in our testament we read, “later on two (false witnesses) came forward, and said, ‘This man stated, “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.”’ And the high priest stood up and said to Him, ‘Do You make no answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?’” (Matthew 26:60b-62, parenthesis mine).
God’s Torah forbids false witnesses, let alone their own judicial law against arguments for conviction, yet here we find Exhibit B as evidence of a false trial.
In (c) we read that all capital cases must be tried during the daytime. Yeshua’s was held at night. Exhibit C in favor of a mis-trial.
We also read in (c) that a guilty verdict for a capital crime must be found in the daytime. It is night. Exhibit D against these proceedings.
In (d) we read that a verdict of conviction for a capital crime must wait a day after the trial. Again, a noble purpose. It was held that in that interim day, new evidence might come forth in favor of the defendant. But in Yeshua’s mock trial, a verdict was reached on the same night. Exhibit E of a false trial.
In (e) we read that trials must not be held on either a Sabbath or a Feast Day. This was both. In fact, Passover is considered a High Sabbath and had begun at sundown. Here the Sanhedrin sat, the highest court in the land of Israel and allegedly representatives of God’s Torah on earth. Yet here we find Exhibit F of the court being outside it’s own standard of law.
In capital trials in the Sanhedrin, it was forbidden to allow a defendant to testify against himself, similar to laws in the United States that allow a person exemption from self-recrimination.
Yet in verses 62-63, we find the high priest Caiaphas demanding that Yeshua do that very thing: “And the high priest stood up and said to Him, ‘Do You make no answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?’ But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, ‘I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.’”
Exhibit G: Yeshua was badgered to testify against himself.
Yeshua’s reply was cunning: “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the Right Hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven” (Matthew 26:64).
Exhibit H: Yeshua put the words back in Caiaphas’ mouth, and accepted no guilt. He did however, in a round-about, non-incriminating way, identify himself as He had on other occasions as the Son of Man, which as discussed in previous editions of the Pneuma Review, could as easily be interpreted as a common man, or the Messiah.
Exhibits A-H: eight counts of proceedings that were out of order and forbidden by the Sanhedrin’s rules of jurisprudence. In a reputable court, this would have lead to a mistrial. But was this a reputable court?
Category: Biblical Studies, Pneuma Review, Summer 2006
Followers
Fans
