The trial of Jesus Christ

According to some legal scholars, the trial of Jesus Christ was one of the most fascinating legal cases in history because it was affected not only by the development of Jewish law but also by the interaction of this law with Roman law. Lord Shaw of Dunfermline once described this trial as “the greatest landmark in the history either of jurisprudence or of the world”.

According to Frank J. Powell, a British barrister, a Metropolitan magistrate and author of the book The Trial of Jesus Christ, both the Jewish courts and Roman courts professed to administer natural as well as legal justice; however, both courts denied Jesus both kinds of justice.

In his book with the same subject, James C. McRurer, a Canadian judge, wrote: “In all the annals of legal history, it would be difficult to find another case in which a prisoner who had been declared not guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction was delivered to the executioner by the judge who acquitted him.”

Normally, a crime is judged by the law of the state in which it has been committed. However, at the time of Jesus, Israel was occupied by the Romans, who only allowed the Jews control over the day-to-day legal matters of the country.

Generally, only the Roman governor could sentence someone to death, but there were cases in which the authorities played fast and loose with this law, such as the stoning of St Stephen and the attempted stoning of the woman accused of adultery.

However, there was also an exception to this rule. That was if a person, who was not a Jew, passed the barrier at the Temple in Jerusalem, beyond which only Jews could go, and thus intruded into the inner court. This offence was punished by death, even though the person was a Roman. This condemnation, however, required confirmation by the Roman procurator.

Roman law was supposed to give Jesus a fair trial, but this was not the case

The Roman trial

It is said that justice given by Roman law was famous, and thus it was expected that the governor, Pontius Pilate, was to give Jesus a fair trial. The fullest description of this trial is found in St John’s Gospel.

According to Albert Henry Ross (pseudonym Frank Morison), an English writer known for writing the Christian Apologetics book Who Moved the Stone? and And Pilate Said, it was expected that Roman law was supposed to give Jesus a fair trial, but this was not the case.

Sculpture of Pontius Pilate.

Pilate became governor of Palestine, with the governance of Syria as his immediate superior, in around AD26. From the beginning of his term of office, Pilate, like his predecessor, was in trouble with the Jews. Apart from the trial of Jesus, it is said that there were at least four other incidents in which Pilate and the Jews were in conflict.

Roman courts began shortly after daybreak and the High Priest Caiaphas probably remitted the case to Pilate around dawn, and the trial began soon afterwards. As Jesus was not a Roman, there was no need for Pilate to follow Roman legal procedure. However, Pilate followed legal procedures to some extent. Moreover, the Jews expected Pilate to simply ratify the death sentence already passed on Jesus.

Pilate’s first question in this trial was: “What have you been accused of?” Taken aback and resenting Pilate’s insistence on retrying the case, the Jews curtly replied: “If he were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” Pilate also made his first attempt to avoid hearing the case when he said: “Take him yourself and judge him by your own law.” To this statement, the Jews replied: “But we have no right to execute anyone.”

Pilate, as a Roman and pagan, would not be concerned about the fact that Jesus was accused of blasphemy. So, in another charge, Jesus was accused of subversion and thus putting the authority of the Roman emperor at stake – that was a charge of treason.

According to Roman statute, it was an offence to engage in any activity against the emperor or the Roman Empire. Now that the charge had been made, the next step was to examine the accused.

So Pilate summoned Jesus and asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”

According to some jurists, instead of pleading not guilty, Jesus made a plea of confession and avoidance, that is to say: “I admit that I claim to be a king but not the sort of king alleged by the chief priests.”

In Roman law, three forms of verdict were possible: not guilty, guilty and doubtful (not proven). Pilate’s first judgment was just. Descending from his seat and taking Jesus with him, he went to the chief priests and the crowd and said: “I find no basis for a charge against this man.” This meant that the trial was at an end as the prosecution had failed to prove the case.

At that moment, the court ought to have been cleared and the prisoner set free. But Pilate’s words, far from ending the case, made matters worse and stirred up the crowd into a frenzy. It was here that Pilate heard that Jesus was from Galilee, and, if he was a Galilean, the man to handle this trial was Herod, the local ruler. But when Jesus was brought before Herod Antipas – the same Herod who had ordered the beheading of John the Baptist – Jesus exercised his legal right and remained silent. Thus, once again, the ball was back in Pilate’s court.

Column of the flagellation in the church of St Praxdes, Rome.

When Jesus was once again brought before him, Pilate decided to punish him and then release him. This punishment was flogging and, despite its illegality, Pilate hoped that this cruelty would satisfy the crowd.

Flogging was a terrible punishment and usually it was the prelude to crucifixion. It may also be said that Pilate was still hoping to satisfy the crowd and make them willing to let Jesus go free after the flogging. But when Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is the man”, it only stirred them to greater anger, and they demanded that Jesus be crucified.

In desperation, Pilate decided to take advantage of the Jewish custom by which the Roman governor in Passover week released a prisoner as a gesture of goodwill. Among the prisoners held was Barabbas, a prisoner who rebelled against the Roman occupying forces, and when Pilate asked them whom they wanted to be released, the crowd chose Barabbas.

Finally, the trial of Jesus came to an end and he was handed over to be crucified when he should have been freed. Pilate had abrogated his responsibility as a judge.

He was handed over to be crucified when he should have been freed

In 1973, Israel’s Supreme Court was petitioned by a Jewish lawyer, on behalf of David Biton, to reopen the trial of Jesus. In his submissions, the lawyer stated that Jesus was brought to trial because of hatred and was not given a fair trial. However, the court rejected the application and said that it was Pilate, the Roman commissioner, not the Sanhedrin, who had judged Jesus.

Senglea’s Christ the Redeemer statue.

Crucifixion was an ancient method of execution in which the victim’s hands and feet were nailed to one of the four different kinds of crosses, namely:

The Crux Simplex – a pole or stake with which common criminals were executed either by being impaled with it or being attached to it, typically with the feet resting on a block to avoid a rapid death by asphyxia and using only one nail through the hands (below the palm);

The Crux Commissa – a capital T-shaped structure, also known as St Anthony’s cross;

The Crux Decussata, an X-shaped cross, also called St Andrew’s cross. The Crux Decussata was named after the Roman “decussis”, or Roman numeral 10. The apostle Andrew was crucified on an X-shaped cross at his request. According to tradition, he felt unworthy to die on the same type of cross on which his Lord, Jesus Christ, had died; and

The Crux Immissa, which was the familiar lowercase T-shaped structure upon which Jesus Christ was crucified according to Scripture and tradition. This cross had a vertical stake with a horizontal crossbeam (called a patibulum) inserted across the upper portion. It is also called the Latin cross and has become the most widely recognised symbol of Christianity.

The crucifix at Ta’ Ġieżu church in Valletta.

At times, victims were crucified upside down. Historians report that, at his request, the apostle Peter was crucified with his head toward the ground because he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord, Jesus Christ.

According to a report published in the American Medical Association Journal, having suffered for at least three hours, Jesus finally died of an unusually severe variety of blood-loss-induced shock and a type of suffocation that normally resulted from crucifixion. He may have suffered a climactic heart seizure, perhaps brought on by a blood clot breaking loose inside his arteries and fatally damaging his heart muscle. However, it was said that, more likely, Jesus suffered a final episode of acute heart failure possibly caused by a catastrophic disturbance in the rhythm of his heartbeat.

It was also said that when Jesus sustained a lance wound after he had lost consciousness for the last time, the spear tip probably pierced the chest cavity, releasing a combination of blood and fluid that accumulated because of the worsening asphyxiation. The end of the lance probably penetrated Jesus’s heart but he was already dead before the Roman soldier raised his weapon.