To evaluate the trial of the Savior from a legal point of view, you need to get acquainted with the procedural features of the legislation of that time and the country in which Christ was tried. Priest Igor Shumak decided to take this step.
There has never been a trial in the history of mankind,
having such significant consequences as this.
Not a single trial contained such far-reaching signs of a miscarriage of justice.
Not a single trial was consecrated
so unsatisfactory and incomplete. Chaim Cohen
When a person reads the Gospel, it is very important to realize that he is reading the Word of God. A book written and preserved in the Church, by members of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But no less important is the realization that the Gospel describes real events that actually took place in human history. Events that took place at the time of the coming to Earth of the Son of God, the True God and the true Man.
It is important that reverence for the Son of God, for the works of God the Word Incarnate, does not hinder us in understanding and the truth of the human nature of Christ. After all, it is precisely the awareness that the True God took on human flesh that often prevents us from perceiving everything that happened to Him on Earth without a touch of mythfulness. It prevents us from analyzing and evaluating the Gospel events with all the intellectual and scientific tools that humanity has today.
In my opinion, this is why the author of the lines included in the epigraph of the work is right. Everyone who is familiar with the Gospel knows about the trial of Jesus Christ. But, even recognizing the historicity of this event, many perceive this judgment as some kind of predetermined and predetermined event, in which only the will of God and there is nothing from the people - participants in this shameful action. And even awareness of the reality of all participants in the events described in the Gospel often does not mean the same simple recognition of their free will and the exercise of the right to choose in their actions and deeds, which, quite naturally, excludes the possibility of analysis and assessment of both the legal process itself and actions of each of its participants.
In order to be able to evaluate the trial of Jesus Christ from a legal point of view, it is necessary, first of all, to become familiar with the procedural features of the legislation of that time and the country in which Jesus Christ was tried.
From Scripture we know that in history the right to decide the fate of other people, to judge and pass sentences was given to the fathers of families and clans. For the first time such a case is described in the Book of Genesis: “...And they told Judah, saying: Your daughter-in-law Tamar has fallen into fornication, and behold, she is with child from fornication. Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned” (Gen. 38:24). Subsequently, with the increase in the number of families, judicial power gradually passed to the elders and heads of clans. And it was limited to the subordinate position of the Jews in Egyptian slavery.
After Moses led the Jews out of Egyptian slavery, the people perceived him as endowed by God Himself with the power to judge and resolve and, naturally, turned to him in all difficult cases. The Book of Exodus says that the number of such conversions increased so much that Moses judged his people from morning until evening (Exodus 18:13). Moreover, Moses himself understood that the people perceived his judgment as the judgment of God. Over time, seeing that he himself could no longer cope with the increased number of appeals, on the advice of his father-in-law Jethro, “Moses chose capable people from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties and leaders of tens. And they judged the people at all times; They reported important matters to Moses, but they judged all small matters themselves” (Ex. 18:25, 26). Scripture says that the judges were chosen by the will of God and, like Moses himself, judged the people according to the will of God.
Subsequently, Moses enshrined these regulations in the Law: “In all your dwellings that the Lord your God will give you, you shall appoint judges and overseers according to your tribes, so that they may judge the people with righteous judgment” (Deut. 16:18). But to consider special cases that Moses himself had previously decided, he ordered that the highest judicial body be addressed, consisting of the priesthood and judges, headed by the chief judge and the high priest. The judges united both judicial and administrative power over the people of Israel throughout the entire period of the Judges, ending with the aged Elijah. From him, the highest judicial and administrative power passed to the prophet Samuel, beginning the period of the prophets, and then to the kings.
King David, after the wars were over, appointed six thousand Levites, under whom were judges and scribes, to supervise the people of Judah and to consider religious and civil appeals and disputes. The role of the supreme judge remained with the king. After this, Jehoshaphat created a central judicial body in Jerusalem, calling it the Supreme Court. Moreover, for the consideration of religious affairs, the High Priest presided over it, and for the consideration of state affairs, the prince of the house of Judah presided. The Levites and elders sat in this court, and the Levites were also scribes. It was this organ that became the prototype of the Sanhedrin during the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
To resolve all legal disputes, a religious approach was taken - observing justice and truth before God. The Mosaic Law, transmitted and commented on, over time took the form of a whole body of Jewish literature called the Talmud, the basis of which was the Mishnah - 12 volumes of the law. The very name Mishnah is translated as the second or oral law, transmitted from the law of Moses and commenting on it. In the courts, the Mishnah was used as a code, as a direct guide for resolving disputes and punishing crimes. And there is every reason to assume that at the time of Jesus’ preaching, the procedural actions of the Sanhedrin and the judges were determined by this very code. And, as A.P. Lopukhin notes, “nothing in the Mishnah is expressed as clearly as the opposition recognized in that ancient time between civil and criminal proceedings - between a court about property and a court about life. Even in relation to the first legal proceedings, their rules amaze the modern legal mind with their tendency to pedantic caution. As for criminal crimes, and especially those punishable by death, there is no doubt that long before the time of Jesus, the high importance that the life of a Jewish citizen had in the eyes of the law led to extreme precautions.” The basis of these precautions were the so-called four rules of Jewish criminal jurisprudence:
• Accuracy in accusations; • Publicity in the proceedings; • Complete freedom for the defendant; • Security against all dangers or mistakes of witnesses.
Civil and criminal trials were treated with vast differences. And while civil processes were unconditionally cautious and circumspect, criminal processes differed from them in the direction of even greater scrupulousness, caution and compliance with all formalities. Moreover, the use of force against the accused, torture of the accused and torment were strictly prohibited.
The Mishnah states: “Civil and criminal proceedings are subject to the same rules regarding interrogation and investigation. But they differ in the production method in the following points. The former requires only three judges, the latter twenty-three. In the first, it makes no difference in whose favor the judges who first submit opinions speak; in the latter those who speak for justification must speak first. In the first, a majority of one vote is always sufficient; in the latter, a majority of one vote is always sufficient to acquit, but a majority of two votes is required to convict. In the first, the decision (in case of error) can be reversed, no matter which way it leans; in the latter, a conviction can be overturned, but an acquittal cannot. In the first, students of the law present in court can speak (as assessors or assistants) both for and against the accused; in the latter they can speak in favor of the accused, but not against him. In the first, the judge who expressed his opinion, no matter for or against, can change it; in the latter, the one who voted for prosecution can change his mind, but the one who voted for acquittal cannot. The first (civil proceedings) begins only during the day, but perhaps ends after nightfall; the latter (criminal proceedings) begins only during the day and must also end during the day. The first can end in acquittal or condemnation on the same day on which it began, the latter can end on the same day if an acquittal is pronounced; but must be postponed until the next day in case it should end in condemnation. And for this reason, criminal proceedings cannot be started on the eve of a Saturday or a holiday.”
The basic principles of the judicial activities of the Sanhedrin - justice, humanity and gentleness towards suspects before their guilt is proven - were not just preserved over time - they were unshakable and unchangeable. None of the interpretations of the Torah deviate from these principles, but seem to sharpen them, convincing the people of their importance with renewed vigor. Society didn't just follow the law. Law was the foundation of the world in which it existed. According to the Mishnah Shimon ben Gamliel: “The world rests on three things: justice, truth and peace...” And this same society makes its future directly dependent on compliance with the law. “Zion will be saved by justice, and her converted [sons] by righteousness” (Isa. 1:27). Moreover, such a provision of the law of the Jewish faith is not ensured by the state or certain circles of this state. State and religious laws are inseparable. They are one. And they do not exist separately.
When members of the Sanhedrin voted, if they voted for an acquittal by a margin of one vote, it was accepted. For a guilty verdict, the margin of victory had to be at least two votes. If the court unanimously voted for a guilty verdict, the principle of legal fiction came into force and the defendant was released from liability, citing the fact that the judges may have entered into a conspiracy.
Doctor of Jurisprudence Robert Bucklin writes: “A candidate for membership in the Sanhedrin was required to have the following: Jewish origin, knowledge of the law, including the Pentateuch of Moses, previous judicial experience in the lower courts, high qualifications in scientific knowledge and languages. In addition to this, the candidate must be modest, popular among the people, good appearance, pious, strong and brave. A member of the Sanhedrin could be disqualified and expelled for illegal trading, gambling, and lending money on interest. Someone who could derive personal benefit from the death and conviction of the accused could not sit in the Sanhedrin..."
According to the law, the accused of crimes could not resort to the services of a lawyer and defended himself. There was no prosecutor on the prosecution side; the witnesses themselves acted as prosecutors.
In addition, an important detail is that the case of a person accused of committing a criminal offense, before being considered by the great Sanhedrin, must go through the so-called. the small Sanhedrin, considered on the merits and made a preliminary decision, but, according to the law, only the great Sanhedrin in its entirety could condemn a person to death.
Christ before Caiaphas. N. P. Shakhovskaya. Mosaic of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ (Savior on Spilled Blood). Con. XIX century. Russia. Saint Petersburg
At the time of the condemnation and execution of Jesus Christ, the post of high priest was held by Caiaphas, the son-in-law of the high priest Anna, who was appointed by the procurator Valery Grat. Despite the fact that Valery Grat was soon replaced as procurator by Pontius Pilate, he did not appoint a new high priest, and Caiaphas continued to lead the Sanhedrin, as if in the shadow of his influential father-in-law. It is assumed that it was Caiaphas who initiated the persecution of Christ, provocations and collection of evidence of His guilt before the law. And the Gospel tells us that Caiaphas, using his power as a high priest, after the Pharisees were informed about Christ’s healing of Lazarus, gathered a council and came out silently with the assumption that it was better to kill Christ:
“One of them, a certain Caiaphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: you know nothing, and you will not think that it is better for us that one man should die for the people, than that the whole people should perish. He did not say this on his own, but, being high priest that year, he predicted that Jesus would die for the people, and not only for the people, but in order to gather together the scattered children of God. From that day they decided to kill Him” (John 11:49-53).
And in another place the Apostle John writes that Caiaphas gave advice to the Jews that it was better for Jesus Christ to die.
In fact, without investigation or trial, the Sanhedrin has already sentenced the accused to death. And, contrary to all the requirements of the law, members of the Sanhedrin looked for ways to give this decision the appearance of legality. People were sent to Jesus to ask Him provocative questions, one of which, about taxes to the emperor, was intended to force Jesus to speak out against state power, so that the state could recognize him as a dangerous state criminal. But all the efforts of the authorities were in vain - Jesus avoided all the traps and continued His preaching in Jerusalem. And this forced the Sanhedrin from secretive attempts to give their actions an appearance of legality to open lawlessness.
Court
At the high priests
From Gethsemane, Jesus was taken into custody to the high priests. All the Evangelists speak of the high priest in the singular, but Matthew names Caiaphas (26:57), and John says that Jesus was first taken to Annas (18:12-13). A comparison of the evidence allows us to determine the share that belonged to each of the high priests - both ruling and retired - in the work of Jesus.
From the narrative of the weather forecasters it follows that two meetings of the Sanhedrin were devoted to the case of Jesus: one - a night meeting, which is narrated in detail by Matthew (26:57-68) and Mark (14:53-65) and briefly mentioned by Luke (22:54), the other - morning, described in detail in Luke (22:66-23:1) and barely mentioned in Matthew (27:1) and Mark (15:1). The Fourth Gospel also speaks of two meetings: the first, told in great detail, takes place in Annas (cf. 18:12-23), the second - strictly speaking, only implied - takes place in Caiaphas (cf. 18:24-28) . It is permissible to think that two meetings of In. exactly correspond to two meetings of weather forecasters. In this case, the formal meeting of the Sanhedrin would only be a morning meeting chaired by the ruling high priest Caiaphas, and the night meeting should be interpreted as a private meeting of the members of the Sanhedrin in Anna's apartment.
The role of Anna in the life of Judaism in the 1st century AD is sufficiently attested by Jewish sources. Although he himself held the office of high priest for a relatively short time (from 6 or 7 to 15 A.D.), after him the high priests were his five sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas, which informed Anna, as the head of the high priestly family, the importance of the recognized head Jewish theocracy. John also clearly hints at this meaning (18:13), thereby showing his awareness of Jewish affairs of the gospel era. It is remarkable, however, that at the same time John re-emphasizes the initiative of Caiaphas (18:13-14, cf. 11:49-50), which was probably known to the Evangelist Matthew (cf. 26:3, 57). Apparently, the involvement of Anna could, under certain conditions, incline the matter to a favorable solution, despite the initiative of Caiaphas. Anna's influence spoke in favor of this possibility. But Anna’s participation did not bring about any change, and at a private meeting Caiaphas’ initiative triumphed.
The first two weather forecasters retained the memory of the testimony of false witnesses, which, however, was not of decisive importance. In the account of this episode, the two Evangelists do not completely agree with each other. In Matt. (26:61) Jesus, according to false witnesses, said that he could destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. It goes without saying that a statement of possibility does not constitute a crime. Evangelist Mark conveys (14:58) the testimony of false witnesses differently: “I will destroy this temple made with hands, and after three days I will erect another, not made with hands.” This statement of intent could be the basis for a charge. But it could not be turned against Jesus either. Why? According to the law of Deuteronomy. 17:6, the testimony of two witnesses could serve as a basis for a death sentence only when they were absolutely consistent with each other. In this case, the testimony of false witnesses was not ί̉ση (Article 59): in the Russian translation it is “sufficient”. But ί̉σης literally means “equal,” as it is rendered in the Slavic translation. The two witnesses did not say the same thing, and for this reason the law of Moses could not be applied. Despite the differences in particulars, both Evangelists reporting about false witnesses agree on the essential: the testimony of false witnesses was not decisive.
Then the high priest - in the context of Matthew, it could only be Caiaphas, but the matter took place, as we tried to show, in the house of Annas - took measures to remove the messianic confession from the lips of Jesus. He appealed to Jesus to break the silence (Matt. 16:62, cf. 63a, Mark 14:60, cf. 61a). It is very possible that the general testimony of the Synoptics about the silence of Jesus during interrogation by the high priests covers the more specific testimony of John. (18:20-23) about Jesus’ refusal to answer questions put to Him. Be that as it may, to the question posed to Jesus by the high priest: “Are you the Christ, the Son of God?” (Matt. 26:63), or, in the transmission of Mark. (14:61), “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” - Jesus answered in the affirmative and spoke about the coming appearance of the Son of Man in glory. In the eyes of the high priest, this answer was blasphemy, and therefore sufficient grounds for imposing the death sentence (Matt. 26: 64-66; Mark 14:62-64). The private meeting thus reached Delhi. Jesus was reproached (Matt. 26:67-68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-65). The Evangelist John also testifies to the blow inflicted on Jesus by one of the servants during interrogation in the house of the high priest Annas (18:22-23). At the same time, in the courtyard of the high priest, Peter denied Jesus. In all four Evangelists, the story of Peter's denial is intertwined with the story of the trial of the high priests.
The formal meeting of the Sanhedrin apparently took place only in the morning. As stated above, Luke alone tells about it in detail (22:66-23:1). From In. (18:24, 28) it can be concluded that it took place under Caiaphas, that is, under his chairmanship. Jesus testified before the Sanhedrin that the Son of Man would henceforth sit at the right hand of the power of God, and thereby repeated the messianic confession that the members of the Sanhedrin had already heard from Him at night. The decision taken then received, thus, formal consolidation. The death sentence was pronounced (cf. Matt. 27:1), and the full Sanhedrin (Luke 23:1) escorted Jesus to the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate. Under Roman rule, the Sanhedrin lost the right of life and death (John 18:31-32, cf. 19:10). In order for a death sentence passed by the Sanhedrin to be carried out, it had to be approved by the procurator. Up to this point, Pilate's participation in the case of Jesus was limited to the fact that he sent a cohort led by a tribune to help the Sanhedrin take possession of Jesus. From now on, the question of the life and death of Jesus depended on his decision.
“And the whole multitude of them rose up, and led Him to Pilate” (Luke 23:1).
Ecce Homo (Behold, Man!). Antonio Ciseri. 1871
After the conquest of Judea, Roman authorities took control of the main judicial body of the Israelites. They began to appoint and remove high priests at their own discretion, depending on the loyalty of the latter or on the tasks facing the conquerors. The only military unit that the Jewish authorities could have, with the permission of the Romans, remained the temple guard. Death sentences passed by the great Sanhedrin required approval by a representative of the Roman authorities - the procurator. There are two opposing views on the relationship between the Sanhedrin and the procurator during the trial of Jesus Christ. The first of them - the Sanhedrin had the right to condemn Christ to death, and a representative of state power had only to approve the sentence. Secondly, the Sanhedrin had no right to condemn a person to death at all. And all his actions from beginning to end were in the nature of excess and abuse of power. Most likely, the Jews, aware of their enslaved position and the need to submit to Rome, often acted against the legal state of affairs, thereby showing their rebellion. But the actions of a government representative also could not be interpreted as a simple confirmation of the verdict. Pontius Pilate began his investigation, despite the displeasure and anger of the crowd. The procurator Pontius Pilate, who was the representative of Rome in Judea during the time of Jesus, was not just a fiscal governor of power. He was the plenipotentiary representative of Tiberius, a ruler endowed with civil, judicial and military powers, and reported directly to the emperor. And this is precisely what confirms his every action and word.
Pontius Pilate himself went out to meet the crowd that had brought the Prisoner. On Friday, the day before the start of the holidays, Jews had no right to enter the houses of pagans. A government representative could not have been unaware of the arrest of Christ. After all, it was he who provided the soldiers for arrest at the request of the Sanhedrin. He decided to find out the reason for this detention: “What do you accuse this Man of” (Luke 18:29), to which he received the crafty answer of the high priest: “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you” (John 18: thirty). A bold answer, meaning that Pialat was required, relying on the authority of the Jewish court, to approve the decision of the Sanhedrin. And, apparently, wanting to remove responsibility for the death of the Messiah before the people or in order to give weight to the verdict by sharing responsibility for it with the state authorities, the high priest and members of the Sanhedrin bring forward a completely new accusation against Jesus Christ, allowing another violation - the substitution of legality trial and sentence:
“And they began to accuse Him, saying: We have found that He corrupts our people and forbids giving tribute to Caesar, calling Himself Christ the King” (Luke 23:2).
Realizing that if the true reason for the condemnation was named, the sentence would not be confirmed and carried out, the Jews gave the accusation the appearance of a crime against Caesar. A crime requiring the highest punishment - death. Thus, the words of Christ spoken to the disciples were fulfilled:
“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death;
and they will deliver Him over to the pagans to be mocked and beaten and crucified; and on the third day he will rise again” (Matthew 20:18, 19). Having been formally condemned under Jewish law, Jesus is executed on charges invented to sentence a pagan. And the death sentence, which decided the fate of the Defendant, was pronounced by a pagan according to pagan laws.
In order to confirm or refute the words of the crowd of Jews, Pontius Pilate asked Christ: “Then Pilate again entered the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said to Him: Are you the King of the Jews?
Jesus answered him: Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me?
Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what did you do?
Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here.
Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.
Pilate said to Him: What is truth? And having said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him” (John 18:33-38).
The hegemon realized that the words of Jesus and His behavior and accusations against Him should be interpreted on a religious plane. And Christ is not a state criminal. However, the Jews are again attempting to present the Prisoner as a dangerous state criminal: “he stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee to this place” (Luke 23:5).
Having heard the area in which the tetrarch Herod Antipas, the ruler with judicial power, ruled at that time, Pontius Pilate decided to take the opportunity to get rid of the need to personally condemn Christ. He invited the crowd to take the Prisoner to the ruler.
Herod's palace was located not far from the praetorium; the ruler himself was already in the palace on the day before the holiday, but his mood was clearly not conducive to a serious trial. He openly entertained himself by asking Jesus Christ questions, wanting to be entertained by seeing some miracle. But Jesus was silent. He saw that the tetrarch, who had the power to understand the court case and make a fair decision on it, was turning the court, which pronounced a death sentence, into an indulgence of his base desires. This bound and meek Captive was in no way similar to the One who until recently had posed a danger to the ruler himself. And whom he was looking for to kill. And now the tetrarch decided to humiliate the Prisoner - by dressing Him in white clothes, the kind worn by candidates for high positions. The ruler thereby showed his attitude towards the verdict, without examining it in essence, but simply laughed at it and returned the Defendant to Pontius Pilate.
Pilate realized that Herod Antipas did not find confirmation of the verdict of the Sanhedrin and decided to take advantage of the custom of releasing one of the criminals in honor of Easter. The right to choose who could be released undoubtedly belonged to the hegemon. However, for some reason this time Pontius Pilate gave this choice to the crowd. Priest Afanasy Gumerov writes:
“It was easy to understand what choice the Jews, whom Pilate asked, would make. What is surprising is the ease with which a high-ranking representative of the country that developed the classical system of law left the legal ground. Roman law knew such a form as a plebiscite (vote of the plebs of the common people), but did not allow any elements of ochlocracy (from the Greek ochlos crowd, kratia power). The Roman judge had no legal right to leave a decision on the life or death of a person to an excited crowd.”
Weakness was the reason why Pontius Pilate ceded judicial power to the crowd. He also showed weakness when, in complete despair and indecision, he asked the angry crowd: “What will I do to Jesus, who is called Christ?” (Matt. 27:22). And he heard: “Let him be crucified” (Matthew 27:22). Weakness also explains the fact that even before delivering his sentence, Pontius Pilate decides to subject the Defendant to scourging. He probably thought in this way to satiate the bloodthirsty crowd, to calm their anger with the sight of the brutal beating of the Prisoner.
The Flagellation of Christ. Guido da Siena. 1275-1280 Germany. Altenburg. Lindenau Museum
The Jews used 40 blows during scourging, but the Romans had no such limitation. Researchers of the Shroud of Turin claim that Jesus' body bore marks from 98 lashes. They put a crown of thorns on Christ, piercing his head with needles, dressed him in a purple robe, and led him out to the crowd, bloodied and beaten by soldiers. Pilate again admitted that he did not see any crimes behind the Prisoner. The crowd demanded: “Crucify, crucify Him!” (John 19:6).
Pontius Pilate asks an insignificant question about where Christ is from. An old and elementary technique to get the interrogated person to talk when he does not want to talk about the essence of the matter. But Christ was silent. Still wanting to show the Prisoner, and even more so to himself, that it is he who is the representative of power, that it is he who holds the fate of Jesus Christ in his hands and makes decisions, Pontius Pilate says to the Son of God: “Aren’t you answering me? Don’t you know that I have power to crucify You, and I have power to let You go” (John 19:10). Apparently, the procurator expected that Christ would confirm him in these thoughts, help him overcome his confusion and indecision, but he hears in response: “You would not have any power over Me if it had not been given to you from above...” (John 19:11).
“From that [time] Pilate sought to release Him. The Jews shouted: if you let Him go, you are not a friend of Caesar; “Everyone who makes himself a king is adversary to Caesar” (John 19:12). This phrase sounded like a threat to the procurator. After all, Pontius Pilate knew well that his predecessor, too loyal to some Jews, was accused of treason against the emperor. Pontius Pilate was afraid only of being accused of high treason - the gravest crime against the crown. And the Jews, by treason, are the gravest crime against the crown. And the Jewish leaders with this phrase showed that they were well aware of this. And if the procurator resists, they will carry out their threat.
Pontius Pilate's resistance was broken. He committed a crime by sending an Innocent One to execution on the cross, of which he was absolutely sure.
Pilate washes his hands. Fresco. XVI century. Greece. Athos. Dionysiatus
After this, the procurator performed the ritual of washing his hands, thereby demonstrating his knowledge of Jewish laws and history. This ritual was intended to demonstrate to the Jews their innocence in shedding blood. But the Jews themselves took responsibility for the murder of the Son of God: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25).
The lawless trial has taken place. The verdict was pronounced and confirmed. Two trials, two accusations, two death sentences for the Lord Incarnate, who was not guilty of any of the charges, but meekly endured all the insults and torments and voluntarily offered Himself to die on the Cross for the sins of mankind. Living among people, Jesus healed the sick, revived the dead, fed people, gave them hope of Eternal Life - he did so much good for people! Did the elders, scribes and Pharisees, the elite of this people, really need to so clearly and blatantly trample upon the Law, so expose themselves to the wrath of God in order to kill Him? It is likely that those who judged Jesus no longer had faith in God. There was no fear of God and no desire to keep His Law. People were driven by the satanic fear of holiness and the murderer’s hatred of the Son of the Living God.
And again and again we return to the importance of understanding the fact that all these iniquities were committed by the evil will of free people, committed in relation to a True man who knew no sin. And this evil will of the judges and executioners of Jesus, with the highest humility, incredible patience and true love, the secrets of the Lord’s economy for the salvation of mankind, was converted into victory over the kingdom of death.
Share link:
Notes
- ↑ 123
Afanasy Gumerov. The trial of Jesus Christ: theological and legal view ([www.pravoslavie.ru/put/040408091300.htm part 1])([www.pravoslavie.ru/put/040409102211 part 2]) // Pravoslavie.ru, 08-09.04 .2004 - [www.krotov.info/yakov/4_evang/1_mt/27_19.htm Krotov Ya. To the Gospel
] - Averky (Taushev), archbishop. Four Gospels.
Guide to the study of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament M., 2001, p. 303 - Sinelnikov V., priest The Shroud of Turin at the dawn of a new era
M., 2001, pp. 20-22 - Gospel of Nicodemus. 2-3.
- Gospel of Nicodemus. 3.
In fine arts
Main article: Ecce Homo
In the iconography of Jesus Christ, there is an image of him after torture, dressed in a scarlet robe and crowned with a crown of thorns. In this form he is depicted in front of the crowd to which Pilate ordered him to be brought out. From the words of Pilate spoken to the people, this iconographic type got its name - Ecce Homo
(«
behold, Man
»).
There are images where Jesus simply stands before Pilate during interrogation, as well as scenes of scourging. Rarer subjects include compositions with Jesus at the trial of Herod Antipas.
Various details in court scenes are given symbolic meaning. So the darkness around the throne of Pilate symbolizes the darkness of paganism, and the bright light of the praetorium where Christ is taken away to be mocked is the light of the Christian faith; the dog at Pilate's throne is a symbol of wickedness.
Characters
Pontius Pilate
is often depicted sitting on a throne with the attributes of royal power (a crown, diadem or laurel wreath), which he, as a Roman governor, did not actually have. In the scene of washing his hands, Pilate is depicted sitting in the judge's chair, one servant pours water on his hands, and a servant may be depicted nearby conveying to him the request of Claudia Procula, his wife, or holding out a scroll with her message.
Jesus Christ
The iconography depends on the scene in which Christ is depicted: tied hands are characteristic of his first appearance before Pilate, after the trial of Herod Antipas, white clothes appear on him, after the reproach - a scarlet robe and a crown of thorns.
Herod Antipas
Always depicted according to his royal status, crowned and seated on a throne. A figure of a warrior with white robes prepared for Christ is placed nearby.
Apocryphal tales
Pilate's trial is described in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. In it, in addition to the information contained in the canonical Gospels, the author makes additions emphasizing the messianic status of Christ (for example, the episode with the worship of Christ banners in the hands of standard bearers). Pilate's trial begins with a dispute about the legality of the birth of Jesus, which ends with a dialogue between Pilate and 12 men who were present at the betrothal of the Virgin Mary and who testified to the legality of the birth of Jesus:
|
The Gospel of Nicodemus gives Jesus' answer to Pilate's question, “ What is truth?”
"(the question according to the Gospel of John remained unanswered): "Jesus said: “
The truth is from heaven
.”
Pilate said to Him: “ Is there no truth in earthly things?”
“Jesus said to Pilate: “
Listen - the truth is on earth among those who, having power, live by the truth and carry out righteous judgment
.”[6]
Witnesses in the defense of Christ at the trial are the sick who were miraculously healed by him: the paralytic, the man born blind, Veronica, the bleeding wife; residents of Jerusalem remember the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus. In response to this, Pilate, on the occasion of the holiday, invites the people to release Christ or Barabbas to their choice, and subsequently the apocrypha repeats the canonical gospel text, with the exception of Jesus being brought out to the people after the reproach.
Links
Places Garden of Gethsemane • Sanhedrin • Golgotha Jesus and disciples Jesus Christ • Virgin Mary • Mary Magdalene • Mary of Cleopas • John the Theologian • Apostle Peter • Apostle Mark • Judas Iscariot • Myrrh-Bearing Women Jews Herod Antipas • Caiaphas • Annas • Malchus • Servant the Doorkeeper • Barabbas • Simon of Cyrene • Ahasuerus • The Prudent and the Mad Robbers Romans Pontius Pilate • Claudius Proculus • Centurion Longinus Items Instruments of the Passion: Crown of Thorns • Robe of the Lord/Seamless Chiton • Life-Giving Cross • Titlo INRI • Spear of Longinus • Holy Grail • Thirty Pieces of Silver Iconography Ecce Homo • Shape of the cross of Jesus Christ • Crucifixion (decorative arts)
Excerpt characterizing Pilate's Trial
At such moments, a feeling similar to the pride of a victim gathered in Princess Marya’s soul. And suddenly, at such moments, in her presence, this father, whom she condemned, either looked for his glasses, feeling near them and not seeing, or forgot what was just happening, or took an unsteady step with weak legs and looked around to see if anyone had seen him weakness, or, worst of all, at dinner, when there were no guests to excite him, he would suddenly doze off, letting go of his napkin, and bend over the plate, his head shaking. “He is old and weak, and I dare to condemn him!” she thought with disgust for herself at such moments. In 1811, in Moscow there lived a French doctor who quickly became fashionable, huge in stature, handsome, as amiable as a Frenchman and, as everyone in Moscow said, a doctor of extraordinary skill - Metivier. He was accepted into the houses of high society not as a doctor, but as an equal. Prince Nikolai Andreich, who laughed at medicine, recently, on the advice of m lle Bourienne, allowed this doctor to visit him and got used to him. Metivier visited the prince twice a week. On Nikola’s day, the prince’s name day, all of Moscow was at the entrance of his house, but he did not order to receive anyone; and only a few, a list of which he gave to Princess Marya, he ordered to be called to dinner. Metivier, who arrived in the morning with congratulations, as a doctor, found it proper to de forcer la consigne [to violate the prohibition], as he told Princess Marya, and went in to see the prince. It so happened that on this birthday morning the old prince was in one of his worst moods. He walked around the house all morning, finding fault with everyone and pretending that he did not understand what they were saying to him and that they did not understand him. Princess Marya firmly knew this state of mind of quiet and preoccupied grumbling, which was usually resolved by an explosion of rage, and as if in front of a loaded, cocked gun, she walked all that morning, waiting for the inevitable shot. The morning before the doctor arrived went well. Having let the doctor pass, Princess Marya sat down with a book in the living room by the door, from which she could hear everything that was happening in the office. At first she heard one voice of Metivier, then the voice of her father, then both voices spoke together, the door swung open and on the threshold appeared the frightened, beautiful figure of Metivier with his black crest, and the figure of a prince in a cap and robe with a face disfigured by rage and drooping pupils of his eyes. - Do not understand? - the prince shouted, - but I understand! French spy, Bonaparte's slave, spy, get out of my house - get out, I say - and he slammed the door. Metivier shrugged his shoulders and approached Mademoiselle Bourienne, who had come running in response to the scream from the next room. “The prince is not entirely healthy,” la bile et le transport au cerveau. Tranquillisez vous, je repasserai demain, [bile and rush to the brain. Calm down, I’ll come by tomorrow,” said Metivier and, putting his finger to his lips, he hurriedly left. Outside the door one could hear footsteps in shoes and shouts: “Spies, traitors, traitors everywhere! There is no moment of peace in your home!” After Metivier left, the old prince called his daughter to him and the full force of his anger fell on her. It was her fault that a spy was allowed in to see him. .After all, he said, he told her to make a list, and those who were not on the list should not be allowed in. Why did they let this scoundrel in! She was the reason for everything. With her he could not have a moment of peace, he could not die in peace, he said. - No, mother, disperse, disperse, you know that, you know! “I can’t do it anymore,” he said and left the room. And as if afraid that she would not be able to console herself somehow, he returned to her and, trying to assume a calm appearance, added: “And don’t think that I told you this in a moment of my heart, but I am calm, and I have thought it over; and it will be - disperse, look for a place for yourself!... - But he could not stand it and with that embitterment that can only be in a person who loves, he, apparently suffering himself, shook his fists and shouted to her: - And even if some fool married her! “He slammed the door, called m lle Bourienne to him and fell silent in the office. At two o'clock the chosen six persons arrived for dinner. The guests—the famous Count Rostopchin, Prince Lopukhin and his nephew, General Chatrov, the prince’s old comrade in arms, and young Pierre and Boris Drubetskoy—were waiting for him in the living room. The other day, Boris, who came to Moscow on vacation, wished to be introduced to Prince Nikolai Andreevich and managed to gain his favor to such an extent that the prince made an exception for him from all the single young people whom he did not accept. The prince’s house was not what is called “light,” but it was such a small circle that, although it was unheard of in the city, it was most flattering to be accepted into it. Boris understood this a week ago, when in his presence Rostopchin told the commander-in-chief, who had called the count to dinner on Nikolai’s day, that he could not be: “On this day I always go to venerate the relics of Prince Nikolai Andreich.” “Oh yes, yes,” answered the commander-in-chief. - What is he?.. The small society gathered in the old-fashioned, high, with old furniture, living room before dinner, looked like a solemn council of a court of justice. Everyone was silent and if they spoke, they spoke quietly. Prince Nikolai Andreich came out serious and silent. Princess Marya seemed even more quiet and timid than usual. The guests were reluctant to address her because they saw that she had no time for their conversations. Count Rostopchin alone held the thread of the conversation, talking about the latest city and political news. Lopukhin and the old general occasionally took part in the conversation. Prince Nikolai Andreich listened as the chief judge listened to the report that was being made to him, only occasionally declaring in silence or a short word that he was taking note of what was being reported to him. The tone of the conversation was such that it was clear that no one approved of what was being done in the political world. They talked about events that obviously confirmed that everything was going from bad to worse; but in every story and judgment it was striking how the narrator stopped or was stopped every time at the border where the judgment could relate to the person of the sovereign emperor. During dinner, the conversation turned to the latest political news, about Napoleon's seizure of the possessions of the Duke of Oldenburg and about the Russian note hostile to Napoleon, sent to all European courts. “Bonaparte treats Europe like a pirate on a conquered ship,” said Count Rostopchin, repeating a phrase he had already spoken several times. - You are only surprised at the long-suffering or blindness of sovereigns. Now it comes to the Pope, and Bonaparte no longer hesitates to overthrow the head of the Catholic religion, and everyone is silent! One of our sovereigns protested against the seizure of the possessions of the Duke of Oldenburg. And then...” Count Rostopchin fell silent, feeling that he was standing at the point where it was no longer possible to judge. “They offered other possessions instead of the Duchy of Oldenburg,” said Prince Nikolai Andreich. “Just as I resettled men from Bald Mountains to Bogucharovo and Ryazan, so he did the dukes.” “Le duc d'Oldenbourg supporte son malheur avec une force de caractere et une resignation admirable, [The Duke of Oldenburg bears his misfortune with remarkable willpower and submission to fate," said Boris, respectfully entering into the conversation. He said this because, while passing from St. Petersburg, he had the honor of introducing himself to the Duke. Prince Nikolai Andreich looked at the young man as if he wanted to say something to him about this, but decided against it, considering him too young for that. “I read our protest about the Oldenburg case and was surprised at the poor wording of this note,” said Count Rostopchin, in the careless tone of a man judging a case well known to him. Pierre looked at Rostopchin with naive surprise, not understanding why he was bothered by the poor edition of the note. – Doesn’t it matter how the note is written, Count? - he said, - if its content is strong. “Mon cher, avec nos 500 mille hommes de troupes, il serait facile d'avoir un beau style, [My dear, with our 500 thousand troops it seems easy to express ourselves in a good style,” said Count Rostopchin. Pierre understood why Count Rostopchin was worried about the edition of the note. “It seems that the scribblers are pretty busy,” said the old prince: “they write everything there in St. Petersburg, not just notes, but they write new laws all the time.” My Andryusha wrote a whole lot of laws for Russia there. Nowadays they write everything! - And he laughed unnaturally. The conversation fell silent for a minute; The old general drew attention to himself by clearing his throat. – Did you deign to hear about the latest event at the show in St. Petersburg? How the new French envoy showed himself! - What? Yes, I heard something; he said something awkwardly in front of His Majesty. “His Majesty drew his attention to the grenadier division and the ceremonial march,” continued the general, “and it was as if the envoy did not pay any attention and seemed to allow himself to say that in France we do not pay attention to such trifles.” The Emperor did not deign to say anything. At the next review, they say, the sovereign never deigned to address him. Everyone fell silent: no judgment could be expressed on this fact, which related personally to the sovereign. - Daring! - said the prince. – Do you know Metivier? I drove him away from me today. He was here, they let me in, no matter how much I asked not to let anyone in,” said the prince, looking angrily at his daughter. And he told his whole conversation with the French doctor and the reasons why he was convinced that Metivier was a spy. Although these reasons were very insufficient and unclear, no one objected. Champagne was served along with the roast. The guests rose from their seats, congratulating the old prince. Princess Marya also approached him. He looked at her with a cold, angry gaze and offered her his wrinkled, shaved cheek. The whole expression of his face told her that he had not forgotten the morning conversation, that his decision remained in the same force, and that only thanks to the presence of guests he was not telling her this now. When they went out into the living room for coffee, the old men sat down together. Prince Nikolai Andreich became more animated and expressed his thoughts about the upcoming war. He said that our wars with Bonaparte would be unhappy as long as we sought alliances with the Germans and meddled in European affairs into which the Peace of Tilsit dragged us. We did not have to fight either for Austria or against Austria. Our policy is all in the east, but in relation to Bonaparte there is one thing - weapons on the border and firmness in politics, and he will never dare to cross the Russian border, as in the seventh year. - And where, prince, are we supposed to fight the French! - said Count Rostopchin. – Can we take up arms against our teachers and gods? Look at our youth, look at our ladies. Our gods are the French, our kingdom of heaven is Paris. He began to speak louder, obviously so that everyone could hear him. – The costumes are French, the thoughts are French, the feelings are French! You kicked out Metivier, because he is a Frenchman and a scoundrel, and our ladies are crawling after him. Yesterday I was at a party, so out of five ladies, three are Catholics and, with the permission of the pope, on Sunday they sew on canvas. And they themselves sit almost naked, like signs of commercial baths, if I may say so. Eh, look at our youth, Prince, he would take the old club of Peter the Great from the Kunstkamera, and in Russian style he would break off the sides, all the nonsense would fall off! Everyone fell silent. The old prince looked at Rostopchin with a smile on his face and shook his head approvingly. “Well, goodbye, your Excellency, don’t get sick,” said Rostopchin, getting up with his characteristic quick movements and extending his hand to the prince. - Goodbye, my dear, - the harp, I will always listen to it! - said the old prince, holding his hand and offering him a cheek for a kiss. Others also rose with Rostopchin. Princess Marya, sitting in the living room and listening to these talk and gossip of the old people, did not understand anything of what she heard; she only thought about whether all the guests noticed her father’s hostile attitude towards her. She did not even notice the special attention and courtesies that Drubetskoy, who had been in their house for the third time, showed her throughout this dinner. Princess Marya, with an absent-minded, questioning look, turned to Pierre, who, the last of the guests, with a hat in his hand and a smile on his face, approached her after the prince had left, and they alone remained in the living room. -Can we sit still? - he said, throwing his fat body into a chair next to Princess Marya. “Oh yes,” she said. “Didn’t you notice anything?” said her look. Pierre was in a pleasant, post-dinner state of mind. He looked ahead and smiled quietly. “How long have you known this young man, princess?” - he said. - Which one? - Drubetsky? - No, recently... - What do you like about him? - Yes, he is a nice young man... Why are you asking me this? - said Princess Marya, continuing to think about her morning conversation with her father. “Because I made an observation, a young man usually comes from St. Petersburg to Moscow on vacation only for the purpose of marrying a rich bride. – You made this observation! - said Princess Marya.
