Chapter XXXII: Section V: Captious Interrogatories.—acts of Violence Towards Jesus

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.