Already had the cock crowed! But it was not yet day. The elders of the
people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and, having
caused Jesus to appear before their council, they proceeded to interrogate
him. Luke xxii. 66.
Now, in the outset, it should be observed, that if they had been less
carried away by their hatred, they should, as it was the _night time_, not
only have postponed, but put a stop to the proceedings, because it was
_the feast of the Passover_, the most solemn of all festivals; and
according to their law no _judicial procedure_ could take place on a
feast-day, under the penalty of being null.(403) Nevertheless, let us see
who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if
he had intended to remain a _judge_, was evidently liable to objection;
for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself the _accuser_ of
Jesus.(404) Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to be
_deserving of death_. He said to his colleagues, that “it was _expedient_
that one man should die for all.” John xviii. 14. Such being the opinion
of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised, if he shows partiality.
Instead of interrogating Jesus respecting _positive acts done_, with their
circumstances, and respecting _facts personal to himself_, Caiaphas
interrogates him respecting _general facts_, respecting his disciples
(whom it would have been much more simple to have called as witnesses),
and respecting his _doctrine_, which was a mere abstraction so long as no
external acts were the consequence of it. “The high priest then asked
Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine.” John xviii. 19.
Jesus answered with dignity: “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught
in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in
secret have I said nothing.” Ib. 20.
“Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, _what I have said unto
them_; behold, they know what I said.” Ib. 21.
“And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck
Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest
so?” Ib. 22.
Will it here be still said, that this violence was the individual act of
the person who thus struck the accused? I answer, that on this occasion
the fact took place in the presence and under the eyes of the whole
council; and, as the high priest who presided did not restrain the author
of it, I come to the conclusion, that he became an accomplice, especially
when this violence was committed under the pretence of avenging the
alleged affront to his dignity.
But in what respect could the answer of Jesus appear offensive? “If I have
spoken evil,” said Jesus, “bear witness of the evil; but if well, why
smitest thou me?”(405) John xviii. 23.
There remained no mode of escaping from this dilemma. They accused Jesus;
it was for those, who accused, to prove their accusation. An accused
person is not obliged to criminate himself. He should have been convicted
by proofs; he himself called for them. Let us see what witnesses were
produced against him.