The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-03-14

.'as shown by the authorities cited con
-Icerning the arrest.
! POINT V.--The proceedings of tn
Sanhedrin against Jesus were illega
,lbecause the court convened before tn
,lofering of the morning sacrifice.
] The Talmud says that "The San
hedrin sat from the close of the morn
fling sacrifice to the time Of the evenin,
'sacriiice." But as the Sanhedrn whicl
tried Jesus sat before the morning sac
,rlfice, il was clearly not legal,
competent tribunal.
POINT VI.-The proceedings agains
Jesus were illegal because they wer
conducted on the first day Of the Feas
lof Unleayened Bread and the Eve o
The Passover.
I The trial Of Jesus began on Friday
April Z, the day before the Sabbath
and the first day Of the Feast of Tn
leayencd Bread. This was specif,
violation Of the Hebrew law, as stateS
in the Mishna, Sanhedrin w., /, an(
Iin other authorities.
POINT VII.-The trial Of Jesus
was Illegal because it was concluded
within one day.
1t is laid down In the Mishna, San
hedrin, ivs /, that: "a criminal cast
resulting in the acquittal Of the ac
Icused may terminate the same day OF
which the trial began. But if a sen
ltenee is to be pronounced it cannot
be concluded before the following day
This is the law applicable to the
case Of Jesus, but it was hagrantly
violated, for the gospels make it clear
that Tie was crucifed on the day Of
The trial and on the Eve Of the Pass.
over The Hebrew day ran from sun.
set 10 sunset. The intention Of th,
law was that the judges should spend
Fat least one night in reflection before
passing sentence, but this they omitted
lin the haste to condemn Jesus.
POINT VIII The sentence ol
condemnation pronounced against Jesus
by the Sanbedrin was Illegal because
It was founded on his uncorroborated
confession.
The great Hebrew authority Mai
monides says 1--WE have IT as a fun
ldamental principle Of our Jurisprudence
THAT no one can bring an accusation
against himself
The gospels show us that the San
Ihedrin was at a loss to proceed against
Jesus, for their Witnesses agreed moi
together Then Caiaphas asked Him,
I"Art Thou the Christ, the Son Of Godf''
And Jesus answered boldly aud eni-
|phatically, u am." lSt. Mark, chapter
Ixlr.) Upon this unsupported confess
sion they all found Him guilty, thereby
violating the principle Of law cited,
POINT IX.-The condemnation Of
Jesus was Illegal, because the verdict
of the Sanhpdrin was unanimous.
one Of the strangest rules Of He
brew law was that which forbade a
conviction upon the unanimous vote
az the judges. Mendelssohn, III Grim
iral Jurisprudence Of the Ancient le-
brews" (p. l4n, says; "A simul-
taneous and unanimous verdict Of guilt
rendered on the day Of the trial has
the effect Of an acquittal"
This rule was broken in the trial Of
Jesus, for st. Mark says clearly "rhey
all condemned him to be guilty of
OATH
POINT X THE PROCEEDINGS against
J ,sus were Illegal IN that l. The sem
/ tance Of condemnation was pronounced
Il place forbidden by law. 2. The
H.gh Priest rent his clothes. 8. TheI
BAL. lting was irregular
Il the trial of capital cases the
grea. Sanhearin was required to meet
in tie Hall Of Hewn Stones (Tishkathl
IIaesazith at Jcrusalem But Jesus
wai not irid here. but in the palace
81 aiaphas. Therefore Ills trial wasl
in m illegal place.
We have seen that caiaphas remit