Caiaphas might be directed by his counsel." Friedlich maintains that it was merely in order to allow Caiaphas sufficient time to assemble the Sanhedrim. The explanation of John, however, "for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas," is much more satisfactory than any or all of these. There is here an intimation of a fact which we learn from profane history, when we are told that the ex-high priest exerted a powerful influence over his priestly son-in-law. In all but the title he was indeed still the high priest. Moreover, he had undoubtedly interested himself in no slight degree, in the present attempt to overthrow the growing kingdom of Christ. How natural then, that the motley crowd, which hurried Jesus along the streets of Jerusalem to trial and death, should first halt before the residence of this influential Jew, to assure him of the entire success of their plans by delivering into his hand the prisoner himself?

JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS.

1

Caiaphas, the high Caiaphas, called by appointment to the

After a short delay, Jesus was sent to priest and President of the Sanhedrim. Josephus, Joseph Caiaphas, received his high priesthood from Valerius Gratus. He continued in office throughout the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, the successor of Valerius, but was removed at the request of the people by the Proconsul Vitellius during his visit to Jerusalem, A. D. 36. He is called by John "high priest of that year." Hug supposes that there were at this time two high priests, Annas and Caiaphas, (Luke iii. 2), and that, by an agreement which they had made, they alternated according to years or festivals. This view, however, is not sustained by Josephus. Lightfoot, on the other hand, finds in these words a reference to the frequent, almost yearly changes at this time in the high priesthood, occasioned by the unwelcome interference of Roman officials; and is of the opinion, as is also Neander, that John introduced this phrase in order to distinguish Caiaphas from Annas, who also bore the title of high priest.

Caiaphas, when informed of the arrest of Jesus, immediately summoned to his palace the members of the Sanhedrim. While they were assembling occurred the preliminary examination by the high priest, which John (xviii. 19-24) alone records.

Then followed, probably as the day began to dawn, the formal arraignment of Jesus before

THE SANHEDRIM.

This was the highest court of judicature among the Jews. It was instituted by Hyrcanus II., but its systematic organization belongs to a later period. The high priest was usually its President, and with him were associated two vice-Presidents. The number of its members was seventy-two. They were of three orders: (1) chief priests, those who had held the office of high priest, together with the heads of the twenty-four classes of priests; (2) elders, who were the princes of tribes, and the heads of distinguished families; (3) scribes, those learned in the laws and customs of the Jews. Not all of the elders and scribes, however, had a seat in the Sanhedrim. This was a privilege which could be secured only by election or royal appointment.

Under the Asmonean princes, in whom both royal and ecclesiastical authority were united, the Sanhedrim exercised jurisdiction in the highest matters, civil and religious, deciding all cases brought before it by appeal from inferior courts, and also exercising a general supervision over the affairs of the nation. It had, moreover, the power of life and death, when free from the Roman yoke.

The place where the Sanhedrim anciently held its deliberations was the hall Gazith, or the stone chamber, which, according to the Talmudists, was in the temple, and east of the most Holy Place.

The seats of the members were so arranged as to form a semicircle. In the centre sat the Nasi or President, and also the two vice-Presidents. The first vice-President was called the Father of the council, and sat on the right of the President, while the second vice-President sat on the left. Before them, upon a slight elevation, stood the accused with his advocate. If the person brought to trial was acquitted, the verdict was recorded by a scribe who sat on the right of the President; if he was condemned, the sentence was recorded by another scribe, who sat on the left. Near also stood those who were employed to

execute the orders of the court. Besides these there were the

witnesses for both parties.

The accusation which had been brought against the prisoner was first read by the President. Then followed, in capital cases, the examination of the witnesses for the defence. "In judgments about the life of any," say the laws of the Sanhedrim, "they begin first to transact about quitting the party who is tried; and they begin not with those things which make for his condemnation." The testimony of slaves, minors, and pèrsons of immoral character, was excluded. The concurrent testimony of two witnesses was sufficient to establish the innocence or guilt of the accused. Those found to have borne false witness were visited with penalties according to the magnitude of the case. In capital cases it was death. After the examination of the witnesses, the verdict determined by the vote of the council was declared by the President.

The trial of capital cases began with the day, and ended with the day. If the accused was acquitted, judgment was passed on the same day; but if he was condemned, it was deferred until the day after. The reason of this is thus explained by the old writers: "Blessed is the judge who leaveneth his judgment" that is they say, "who delays his judgment, and lets it rest all night that he may sift out the truth."

Such was the Sanhedrim in the days of the Jewish commonwealth; but the commonwealth was now no more, and with it had departed the glory of this high tribunal. Its place of assembly was no longer the hall Gazith within the temple, but according to Josephus was on Mount Zion. Its authority and supreme influence was so far diminished that it had ceased to execute its judgments in capital cases, and by many proofs had given evidence that it was in a great decree under the influence of the Roman procurator. Its proceedings, moreover, had lost much of their former regularity.

JESUS BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.

In the palace of Caiaphas, and not in the council chamber, at night, and not in the day as the law required, stands Jesus before the Sanhedrim. No witnesses appear in his behalf; "for the Jews had agreed already that if any man did confess that

he was the Christ he should be put out of the synagogue." The witnesses for the prosecution were brought forward, but in their testimony they failed to meet the stern requirements of the Mosaic code. Even the two who had heard Christ speak of the destruction of the Temple are unable to agree. Thus foiled in his design, Caiaphas seeks now to draw from the prisoner himself such a confession as would furnish some ground at least for the sentence, which the Sanhedrim are already impatient to pass. To his words at first the Saviour deigns no reply; but when the high priest, with a solemn adjuration which, according to a Jewish custom, placed the accused himself under the obligations of an oath, asks Jesus, "Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed?" he breaks his long silence, and answers "I am!" The members of the Sanhedrim start to their feet in rage. "Art thou," say they all, "the Son of God?" "Ye say that I am.” is the Saviour's calmer reply. The whole assembly is at once in an uproar. Rending his princely garments, Caiaphas cries out: "He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses! What think ye?" With a shout they answered, "He is guilty of death!"

The rending of one's garments was in early times a sign expressive of the deepest affliction. Thus we are told that Jacob, when he beheld the blood-stained coat of Joseph, "rent his clothes, and mourned for his son many days." In times of great public distress the same custom was observed. A like ceremony also prevailed among the Romans and the Greeks. So also among the Jews, when one guilty of blasphemy was brought before a court for trial, the judges were accustomed to rend their garments when the blasphemous words were spoken by the witnesses. It was doubtless in accordance with this established usage that Caiaphas rent his priestly robes when with mingled horror and rage he said of Christ: "He has spoken blasphemy."

Of this condemnation of Christ by the Sanhedrim, Bengel pithily remarks: "Moses ait; Blasphemus moriatur. Caiaphas dicit: Jesus est blasphemus. Assessores concludunt: Jesus moriatur."

The trial was now over, but it was not yet day. It has already been seen that according to the Talmudists the trial of

capital cases must begin with the day and end with the day. As it was also required that the sentence should be pronounced within the same limits, Friedlich supposes that the Sanhedrim now adjourned until daylight, in order at least in part to conform to their usual regulations.

Meanwhile occurred that scene of fiendish mockery and cruelty, so briefly and so vividly described by the Evangelists.

As soon as it was day the Sanhedrim reassembled. The sentence of death was now formally pronounced. But here the power of this tribunal ended, unless what had been done should receive the sanction of the Roman procurator. Accordingly it became a question of no slight importance how they might best present the case to him in order to secure the execution of their sentence. At length, their policy determined, "the whole multitude of them," as Luke says, arose and led Jesus unto Pilate.

JESUS BEFORE PILATE.

Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, Samaria and Idumæa, was the successor of Valerius Gratus. He received his appointment to this province from the Emperor Tiberius, about the year A. D. 26, and continued in office ten years. According to Josephus, the immediate cause of his removal was his treatment of the Samaritans, many of whom he had cruelly slaughtered during a recent tumult. An embassy from the Samaritan senate laid the matter before Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria, who ordered Pilate to Rome to answer for his conduct before Tiberius. But Tiberius died while Pilate was on his voyage thither. He was, however, condemned by Caligula, and banished to Gaul, where, according to Eusebius, he ended his life by suicide about the year A. D. 41.

During his procuratorship, as was the custom with the Roman governors, Pilate resided principally at Cæsarea on the coast. He was accustomed, however, to attend all the great festivals of the Jews at Jerusalem, in order to suppress whatever disturbances might arise among the crowds of pilgrims which flocked to the sacred city on those occasions. For this purpose a cohort of Roman soldiers was garrisoned at such times within the city's walls. While in Jerusalem, Pilate occupied the palace of Herod, which did not, as Friedlich states, join the castle