These charges were indeed serious and also had deep implications.There was one area in which the Roman administration allowed the Sanhedrin to exercise unrestricted
authority – this was the area of offence against the sanctity of the Temple. If this evidence had been
admissible, there would have been a prima facie case for the court to go ahead and deal with the charge in
its own authority without any reference to the Roman governor.
Jewish law in its ̳hakiroth‘ (searching queries) gives seven questions which must be asked of a witness in a
trial for blasphemy that relate to the time and place of the blasphemy. These seven witnesses would easily
be able to answer these questions. The occasion on which Y‘shua was meant to have said these words was
about two years earlier on the first cleansing of the Temple.
John records His exact words, ―Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up‘ JOHN 2:19, BUT
JOHN THEN ADDS, ̳But he spake of the temple of his body‖ (John 2:21).
These two witnesses had twisted the words of Y‘shua, and by a willful misrepresentation tried to make them
say something which he had not said. No wonder Mark records, ―but neither so did their witness agree
together‖ (Mark 14:59). The prosecution had failed for the second time. There was no case before the court.
Once again, Y‘shua was unaccused.
But there was another illegality at this stage in the proceedings. According to Jewish law, the Sanhedrin
should now have dealt with these false witnesses because the law is very clear about it.
(15) ―One witness alone shall not take the stand against a man in regard to any crime or any offense of
which he may be guilty; a judicial fact shall be established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
(16) If an unjust witness takes the stand against a man to accuse him of a defection from the law,
(17) the two parties in the dispute shall appear before the LORD in the presence of the priests or judges
in office at that time;
(18) and if after a thorough investigation the judges find that the witness is a false witness and has
accused his kinsman falsely,
(19) you shall do to him as he planned to do to his kinsman. Thus shall you purge the evil from your
midst.
(20) The rest, on hearing of it, shall fear, and never again do a thing so evil among you.‖ (Deut 19:15-20)
Their testimony did not agree; and as Moses wrote, these witnesses had tried to swear a man‘s life away
and their lives should have been forfeited. While we are not told what happened to them, it is more than likely
that they did not pay any penalty – let alone what was laid down by the law. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin
protected them.
By now, one thing was quite certain. The case against Y‘shua had broken down. Twice witnesses had
disagreed. Y‘shua was still unaccused. The trial (if there was one) should have ended. But Caiaphas was
determined to have Y‘shua convicted and condemned to death. Instead of discharging Him, he now stood up
and cross-examined Y‘shua. He ignored the fact that the only two witnesses had failed to agree.
―And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it
which these witness against thee?‖ (Mark 14:60).
Y‘shua was still entitled to remain silent. Not only was he unaccused, but even if he had been accused,
Jewish law (like English law) gave an accused the right of silence. No one could be compelled to convict
themselves by being forced to speak. This silence of Y‘shua must have infuriated Caiaphas more than ever.
He now threw all semblance of legality to the wind. Something happened which is unique in legal history.
Caiaphas ceased to be a judge and turned himself into council for the prosecution, taking the case into his
own hands. What has started out as a trial has now become an inquisition.
Matthew tells us how Caiaphas put Y‘shua on solemn oath, and used the oath of testimony saying:
―I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God.‖ (Matt 26:63)
Such an adjuration was understood to render an answer legally necessary, despite the fact that it was illegal
to do this trial for life. By Jewish law, Y‘shua had to reply:
―If any person refuses to give the information which, as a witness of something he has seen or learned, he
has been adjured to give, and thus commits a sin and has guilt to bear‖ (Lev 5:1)