One’s general disposition says a lot about his outlook on life.   His outlook on life will affect everything about his interaction with people, his self-esteem, and his overall happiness level.

A bad attitude is very self-defeating, but a good attitude is a great asset.  We choose our attitude, therefore, we would be wise to choose a good one.

It was a dark day in United States history when the US Supreme Court ruled abortion to be legal, in the infamous case of Roe v. Wade.  More than 50 Million of the most innocent of lifes have been senslessly snuffed out since that day.  Much darker was the day the innocent Son of God was mistreated and mistried through the courts of His day.  The Sanhedrein was reputed to be a very fair court, but not so in the case of Jesus.  Consider this information taken from “Pathlights.”

We witness many illegal incidents in this trial of Jesus before the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin. (1) Hebrew law demanded two sessions of the Sanhedrin in case of condemnation, to be held a day apart. In the case of a capital [death sentence] trial, sentence could not be pronounced until the afternoon of the second day. The Hebrew trial of Jesus was thus illegal for it was concluded within one day; the entire proceedings taking place the fourteenth of Nisan, the first lunar month of the Jewish year. Here is what the law says: “In pecuniary [money fines] cases a trial may end the same day it began. In capital [death sentence] cases acquittal [declaring innocent] may be pronounced the same day, but the pronouncing of sentence of death must be deferred until the following day in the hope that some argument may meanwhile be discovered in favor of the accused “–Mishna, sect. 8, “Sanhedrin,” p. 32 (and also found in sect. 4, p. 1).

It is evident from Mark 14:53 and 15:1 and other passages that there were two separate sessions of the Sanhedrin, and that they were both held the same night.

The first was held very early in the morning before daylight, with only a portion of the members present, probably a quorum composed of the bitterest enemies of Jesus.

(2) The fact that the first of these trials was a night trial invalidated both, and was itself illegal. Like the Romans (and most modern civilizations), the Jews prohibited all legal proceedings by night. Night trials would encourage secret sessions which were forbidden.

(3) The Hebrew trial and condemnation of Jesus was illegal because it took place before the morning sacrifice. “The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice.”–Talmud, Jerus., “Sanhedrin,” C.I. fol. 19. “No session of court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice.”–M.M. Lemann, Jesus Before the Sanhedrin, p. 109.

(4,5) The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was held on the day before the Seventh-day Sabbath,–and it was also held the day before a Jewish ceremonial holy-day–the Passover. Hebrew courts were not permitted to meet on the weekly Seventh-day Sabbath nor on the day before it occurred. In addition, court trials were not permitted on a festival or ceremonial sabbath, such as the Passover, nor on the day before it took place. The trial of Jesus occurred on the day before both the weekly Sabbath and the Yearly Passover, which was a ceremonial sabbath. Therefore, for both of these reasons, the trial of Jesus was unlawful by Jewish law.

(6) During the hour or two between the two Sanhedrin court trials, the Jewish leaders permitted the rabble to spit upon, torment and persecute Jesus, the Uncondemned. (Mark 14:65, Luke 22:63-65 and the Old Testament prophecies of this: Psalm 18:4, 69:12, Isaiah 50:6). The laws of most nations presume a person to be innocent until he is proven guilty, and prior to a final sentence of condemnation, he is entitled to and given every possible protection by the court from ill treatment. The permitting of a small riot over the person of Jesus, between the two court hearings, was totally illegal by Hebrew law.

(7) The Hebrew court trials of Christ never produced any acceptable testimony of witnesses against Jesus. And yet sentence of condemnation was pronounced. This was illegal.

(8) The accusation or charge or indictment against Christ was illegal on two counts–it was vague and indefinite. “The entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic code rests upon four rules: certainty in the indictment; publicity in the discussion; full freedom granted to the accused; and assurance against all dangers or errors of testimony.”–Joseph Salvador, Histoire des lnstitutions de Moise, p. 365. This second charge was never clearly formulated in this court of law.

(9) An indictment against a person must deal with a definite crime, and the trial must be carried to completion on the basis of that charge. No prosecutor is ever permitted to change charges during the court proceedings because of a failure to prove the first charge on which the trial was based. When the false witnesses failed to prove these charge of sedition, Jesus should have been set at liberty and the case dismissed. But this was not done. Instead, the presiding judge suddenly shifted to a new charge, that of blasphemy.

(10) As we have seen above, not one witness could be found against Jesus, –but in Hebrew law, not one but at least two witnesses must come forward and convincingly testify before sentence of condemnation could be pronounced (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, Numbers 35:30). And the testimony of these–at least two–witnesses must agree.

(11) The use of false witnesses was another serious infraction of Hebrew law. Such conduct not only disqualified the judge in the case from having further jurisdiction in that trial,–but on the basis of it he would also be relieved of his judgeship entirely. It also condemned the false witnesses involved to suffer the very penalty they sought to bring upon the accused. Those who testified against Jesus were themselves deserving of death.

(12) For some time before His trial, the Jewish authorities had Jesus constantly shadowed by hired informers, or spies. This also was unlawful (Luke 20:20). But in spite of this, when brought to witness against Him, their testimony was too contradictory to agree.

(13) Under Hebrew law, the judge was supposed to seek for evidence only in behalf of the accused. “The judges leaned always to the side of the defendant and gave him the advantage of every possible doubt.”–Chandler, The Trial of Jesus, vol. 1 pp. 153-154.  The judges were the defenders, and the witnesses the prosecutors.

(14,15) To insure justice to the accused, under Hebrew law, the arguments must begin in his behalf. Nothing was permitted to be said against him till after at least one of the judges had spoken in his behalf. Neither of these two rules were followed in the case of Jesus, it would appear.

(16) The sentence against Jesus was unlawful because it was founded on His own confession (Mark 14:61.64). “Self accusation in cases of capital crime was worthless. For if not guilty he accuses himself of a falsehood; if guilty he is a wicked man, and no wicked man, according to Hebrew law, is permitted to testify, especially not in penal cases.”–Rabbi Isaac M. Wise, The Martyrdom of Jesus, p. 74. Rabbi Wise is a learned Jewish rabbi of a century ago. The judges of Christ not only violated the law by acting as accusers, which only witnesses were to do, but in addition they illegally extracted a confession from Jesus and then used it as the basis for a death sentence.

(17) One of the strangest rules of law ever known was one in the Hebrew legal system: A person could not be convicted on a unanimous vote of the judges. “A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal.” –Mendelsohn, The Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 141

(18) The trial was concluded by a judge that had been disqualified to conduct it. This too was illegal. Under the Mosaic code, if a high priest intentionally tore his clothing, he was automatically disqualified as high priest and was to receive the death sentence (Leviticus 10:6, 21:10).

(19) By Hebrew law the balloting carried on here was illegal. In a criminal case the judges must vote one at a time, beginning with the youngest. Jesus was condemned by an acclamation–a single chorus of approval (Matthew 26:66, Mark 14:64).

Well, you get the point!

In order to prosecute an innocent man, there has to be something wrong with the proceedings.  Such was the case in the trial of Jesus.  Here is some more information taken from “Pathlights.”

Jesus was examined by two preliminary hearings before being tried before the supreme Jewish tribunal, the Sanhedrin. The first was before Annas, and took place shortly after midnight. This was followed by another before Caiaphas, who was probably seated with a few members of the Sanhedrin who, with him and Annas, considered themselves bitter enemies of Jesus. In these hearings Jesus was closely questioned regarding His disciples and His teachings. John 18:19-24 probably gives the questioning before Annas. It was hoped that Jesus would make some statement on which an indictment could be based, charging Him with blasphemy against God, or sedition against the government, or both.

This was the first of a series of six trials constituting the world’s master judicial burlesque or travesty on justice. Jesus was condemned by two separate tribunals, one Hebrew and the other Roman. Each of the two court trials was divided into three parts, the first trial being Christ’s hearings before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin. The second trial was before Pilate, Herod, and Pilate again. In the preliminary hearings before Annas and Caiaphas it was hoped that Jesus would incriminate Himself, and thus furnish evidence which would convict Him before the Jewish tribunal.

After appearing before Annas, Jesus was led away to a hearing before Caiaphas (Matthew 26:57). Only John mentions the first hearing before Annas (John 18:13-14, 24). It is estimated that Jesus was brought before Caiaphas at about 2 a. m. Joseph Caiaphas had been appointed to the office of high priest by Valerius Gratus in the year 18 A.D. He remained high priest for many years, the longest of any of the family of Annas. The name “Caiaphas” means “the oppressor,” and Rosadi declares that “his intellectual caliber was below mediocrity,” and that the power he wielded was only nominal–Annas was the real power behind the priesthood in those days. Caiaphas was deposed by Vitellius after the fall of Pilate in 36 A.D.

The preliminary hearings before Annas and Caiaphas were illegal on four separate counts. (1) They were a violation of the rule of law that forbade all proceedings by night. M. Dupin, the French advocate, in speaking of these hearings said: “Now the Jewish law prohibited all proceedings by night; [this] therefore, was another infraction of the law.”

(2) Hebrew law prohibited a judge or a magistrate, sitting alone, from questioning an accused person judicially, or to sit in judgment on his legal rights, either by day or by night. No one-judge courts were allowed–their smallest sessions had three and their largest, seventy-one judges. “Be not a sole judge, for there is no sole judge but One [God].”–a well-known saying in the Jewish Mishna. It was believed that God alone was capable of judging without counsel.

(3) Private preliminary hearings–no matter how many judges were present–were specifically forbidden by Jewish law. “A principle perpetually reproduced in the Hebrew Scriptures relates to the two conditions of publicity and liberty. An accused man was never subjected to private or secret examination, lest, in his perplexity, he furnish damaging testimony against himself.” –Joseph Salvador, Histoire des Institutions de Moise, p. 365-366. It was to obtain such evidence that Jesus was questioned in these two preliminary hearings. Although many modern countries have such preliminary hearings to decide if the accused should be tried, no such rule was known in Hebrew law.

(4) The striking of Jesus by the officer during the hearing before Annas (John 18:22) was “an act of brutality which Hebrew jurisprudence did not tolerate . . . It was an outrage upon the Hebrew sense of justice and humanity which in its normal state was very pure and lofty.” –Chandler, vol. 1, p. 245. In His reply to the smiter (John 18:23), “Jesus planted Himself squarely upon His legal rights as a Jewish citizen. It was in every word [that He there spoke] the voice of pure Hebrew justice.”–Chandler, Vol. 1, p. 246. Such an act–a court officer striking a defendant in a court trial–would be illegal in any court in the world. Christ was acting within His legal rights when He refused to answer the questions of the high priest. His statement was an appeal for the legal testimony of witnesses.

I found some great information on a website called, “Pathlights.”  Jesus was taken before Annas, father in law to Caiaphas.

Jesus, after being securely bound by the temple guard in Gethsemane, was taken to the palace of Annas. Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, had been appointed high priest by the Roman legate Quirinus in the year 6 A.D. Seven years later he was discharged from his high office by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus for imposing and executing capital sentences which had been forbidden by the imperial government. Although he was now only an ex-high priest, he was still the most powerful man in the affairs of the Jews, He still presided over the Sanhedrin at times, and practically dictated its decisions. The office of high priest remained in his family for fifty years. Josephus, the historian tells us that Annas was “haughty, audacious, and cruel.” At the time Jesus was brought before him, Annas may have been president of the Sanhedrin; that position was not always held by the high priest. The Sanhedrin was the Jewish supreme court in the time of Jesus. It was also called “the Council of Seventy.”

In order to arrest Jesus, the Jews had to violate a number of their own guidelines.  Below is a sampling, taken from a website called Pathlights.

(1) All legal proceedings, including arrests, were forbidden at night. It was a well-established and inflexible rule of Hebrew law that arrests and trials leading to capital punishment [death], could not occur at night. Dupin the famous French lawyer explicitly states that the trial of Jesus was illegal, but the arrest was also, because both were held at night (Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus, volume 1, pages 226-227).

(2) The use of a traitor, and thus an accomplice, in effecting an arrest or securing a conviction was forbidden by Hebrew law. “Turning state’s evidence” was illegal in Hebrew jurisprudence (Leviticus 19:16-18). “The testimony of an accomplice is not permissible by rabbinic law, . . and no man’s life, nor his liberty, nor his reputation can be endangered by the malice of one who has confessed himself a criminal” or accomplice of the one judged–S. Mendelsohn, The Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, page 274.

“The ancient Hebrews forbade the use of accomplice testimony . . . The arrest of Jesus was ordered upon the supposition that He was a criminal: this same supposition would have made Judas, who had aided, encouraged, and abetted Jesus in the propagation of His faith, an accomplice. If Judas was not an accomplice, Jesus was innocent, and His arrest an outrage, and therefore illegal. –Chandler, The Trial of Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 228 -229.

(3) The arrest was not the result of a legal summons. “His capture was not the result of a legal mandate from a court whose intentions were to conduct a legal trial for the purpose of reaching a righteous judgment.” –Chandler, vol. 2, p. 237. “This arrest . . . was the execution of an illegal and factious resolution of the Sanhedrin . . . There was no idea of apprehending a citizen in order to try him upon  a charge which after sincere and regular judgment might be found just or unfounded; the intention was simply to seize a man and do away with him.” –Giovanni Rosadi, The Trial of Jesus, p. 114.

(4) According to Hebrew law it was illegal to bind an uncondemned man. (John 18:12-13). Thus, in connection with the midnight arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane, there took place the first four of a series of more than a score of illegal acts that made the entire proceeding the greatest travesty on justice in all the annals of mankind.