Session 10

Dr. Nagy, in chapter 14 and verse 55 we read," now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none." My question is, if they found no testimony against Jesus, why did they want to put Him to death?
The truth is the fact that they took Jesus to the house of the high priest was not to try Him but to kill Him. It was an unusual trial; any trial would usually take place to reveal the truth, to set the innocent free and to judge the guilty one, but this trial was the strangest of its kind. They did this because the light of Christ was exposing the darkness in their souls and their hatred. His presence was threatening their positions as the Bible says, " The multitudes were following Him."
Dr. Nagy, you already mentioned that the trial of the Lord Jesus was the strangest one in history of mankind, what was strange about it?
The trial of the Lord Jesus was the strangest trial known in human history because the judge here was the opponent. Every trial usually has a judge to judge between the opponents, but here we see that the judge is the opponent. The natural thing would be that the opponent would try to bring the maximum amount of charges against his enemy and to try to prove them and to get the maximum possible sentence. This was the situation of the great high priest, and this is what he tried to do. How can the oppressor justices toward the oppressed?
This is from the judge point of view, what about the Lord Jesus position? What was strange about it? 
According to the accused one the Lord Jesus, it was very strange because every criminal is accused of committing a crime or sin that he committed. But this is the only criminal that we heard of in all history who would do well and heal and set the ones oppressed by the devil free. As the Bible says that," He did nothing wrong. He did not know sin and had no guile in His speech. He will not cry out, nor raise His voice, nor cause His voice to be heard in the street." (Isaiah 42: 2) His crime was that He healed the sick. He raised the dead and filled the needs. That is why they were trying to bring false accusations against Him and false witnesses, but He still remained faultless.
I think it is rather strange that the Lord Jesus remained silent during His trial and did not defend Himself, isn't it true? 
This is the second strange point that the Lord Jesus remained silent before those who interrogated Him, which conforms to what came in the scriptures in Isaiah chapter 53, "and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth." This surprised all those who were present during the trial. The High priest asked Him," Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" The reason He was silent is that He came to redeem men and as a Passover on behalf of human sin. He said," Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?" Why would He speak and defend Himself if the judge who is going to try Him in this situation, is His opponent!
could some people see the fact that He remained silent before the ones who tried Him as weakness from the Lord Jesus part, or as a confession that He committed the charges?
To answer your question I would like to mention a few points here. First is that the Lord Jesus knew when to speak and when to keep silent and which question to answer and the questions He was not supposed to answer. Second every one who was to be executed; however weak or even who admitted his own guilt, had to speak and defend himself. How much more would the Lord Jesus do; a man of strong character and will who knew to do the right thing in due time. The third thing is that His silence was not admitting His own guilt because He is the one who asked the multitudes and told them," which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8: 46) Which means who can blame me for a sin I did commit? No one could say or mention any sin
What is the proof that the Lord Jesus was not weak or actually admitting His own guilt concerning the charges He faced? 
The proof is that the Lord Jesus, blessed be His name, gave a very strong reply to the high priest, a clear-cut one that ended the whole trial and led them to crucify Him. He knew this quite well; never the less He did not go weak before the truth. When the high Priest asked Him, "Are you the Messiah the blessed Son of God?" (Or according to the Jewish understanding at that time are you the Messiah, the blessed God?) Then Jesus replied, " I am the One." He stated it firmly and clearly and He added," And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven." This was not the language of a weak man or criminal who was admitting his own guilt.
Dr. Nagy, why did the Lord Jesus answer this question in particular during the whole long trial? 
Because the question entailed many issues. The first reason was that one of the main reasons for the Lord Jesus to come to earth was to reveal that He is God coming in the flesh. And that He is the messiah the Son of the living God, and that He is the corner stone in Christian faith. If had He kept silent before this question, are you the Messiah the blessed Son of God? meant that He was concealing the truth, a very important one that God revealed to man, which is the divine nature of Christ. The second reason is to end the arguments of those who claim that the Lord Jesus never said about Himself that He is the Son of God, or that He was God coming in the flesh. So here He states it clearly, "I am." The third reason is that the Lord Jesus would never compromise the truth concerning spiritual matters when His needed his own clarifications or statements were needed.
Dr. Nagy, what else do you find strange in this trial?
There are many strange aspects in this trial. One thing is that the false witnesses, who came to testify against the Lord Jesus, were not in agreement concerning the charges. They could not find any fault or blame in Him even when they were testifying against Him. They had to agree together before the trial but they did not. And in similar cases where there is lack of evidence and disagreement among the witnesses it is common to release the accused one.
Did this charge deserve death? And can any body, in order to defend God, execute another person or shed his blood as we find this common nowadays? 
The truth is that the charge that was against the Lord Jesus is that when He said, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." By the way He did not say this. This story is mentioned in the book of John chapter two and verse 19 when the Lord Jesus spoke about this temple. He did not mean the temple of Jerusalem, but He meant the temple of His body. He meant that if they kill Him, He would rise in the third day. That is exactly what happened in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead. Assuming He was speaking about the temple of Jerusalem, or He was making Himself equal to God. God all mighty is capable of defending Himself and no human being has the right to kill another or shed His blood because God almighty, the One who has no similar or partner, did not give this right to human beings even to apostles or prophets. He is the source of death and life.

Home