There are two answers in this question which contradict each other:

How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times?

The first answer says that Jesus was guilty of what he was charged. The second claims that Jesus was not guilty at all but intentionally choose not to defend himself. So was he guilty or not?

  • My short answer would be BOTH – Mawia Feb 11 '13 at 5:10
  • The two answers actually do not contradict each other. Hammer does explain how both answers are true quite well. – Mike Feb 11 '13 at 7:06
  • 1
    according to whom? That question needs to be asked for this to be a valid question per our FAQ. Please edit in a perspective, we're not here to determine what's truth, but to inform about the beliefs of various sects of Christianity. – wax eagle Feb 11 '13 at 13:49

Consider this.

A man walks into a court room and long story short, the judge convicts the man of murder in the first degree. However, the man did not commit the crime. Therefore, he is falsely accused, and falsely convicted. Nevertheless, he was convicted, and he was sentenced to death.

Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy? According to the Sanhedrin, yes. Was Jesus falsely accused and falsely convicted? Yes. God (that is, Jesus) cannot be rightly convicted of blasphemy.

It's a matter of perspective. The Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of blasphemy because they did not believe he was God, just as the judge did not believe the man was innocent. Essentially, it's unjust judgment on the part of the judges. However, Jesus was God, and therefore, he was falsely accused and falsely convicted.

  • It seems that Jesus is not charged with blasphemy. Pilate is a governor. Not a judge. Basically Pilate should make a political decision whether Jesus would be trouble maker. In which case, popular support justify his decission. – user4234 Nov 4 '15 at 3:21

The Gospel of Luke answers this question for us:

Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. 15 Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. 16 I will therefore punish and release him.” Luke 23:13-16

It seems that Jesus was not found guilty of anything worthy of death. Under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed to judge smaller matters, but capital punishment was reserved for Rome alone. Neither Pilate nor Herod found any guilt in Jesus at all on any matter that was pertinent.

The Jews found Him guilty of blasphemy, but that was just based on His claim to Deity. They never figured out whether He was or not. Since Jesus was, indeed, God, He was not guilty of blasphemy. (On this point, I disagree with the answer you cited. Jesus did, indeed, claim to be God, that was true.)

Consequently, Jesus was not guilty of any of the crimes of which He was accused, either in the trial among the Jewish leaders or in the trial before Pilate and Herod.

  • What crime did jesus being charged with anyway? – user4234 Nov 4 '15 at 3:22

Jesus was a follower of the Mosaic laws and it is a blasphemy to be judged by pagan courts, hence he cringed to be judged by the authority he did not deem fit and responding or participating in the pagan roman courts would amount to getting judged by laws other then revealed in the Old testament. This is abundantly clear from the account of Jesus when he barged into the temple and showed contempt of the temple.

Regarding Jews claiming that Jesus claimed divinity then, It is very clear from the bible that Jews wanted to eliminate Jesus as the Rabbis perceived Jesus a threat to their business of religion. It is worthwhile and noteworthy to see that in spite of Jesus being given a platform in court to preach his so called "divinity" he chose to remain silent. Silence by no means means approval. In this case it certainly means opposition as if it were to mean approval then he would not have responded with "You said so" when the Judge asked him about his claim of being " King of Jews". It was like saying "You said so.. I didn't".

So to conclude Jesus was not guilty for the sheer reason that it was a false charge, Infact the charge itself was not confirmed by Jesus in court as Jesus refused to be judged by any evil court.

  • Did he respond properly in Jewish court? – Anixx Feb 11 '13 at 15:14
  • 1
    That prohibition might apply to the Sanhedrin in bringing the case but not to Jesus in defending himself. It is also quite possible that only Rabbinic interpretation and not the Law itself makes this prohibition. The preserving of life--even one's own--presumably takes priority over respecting human authorities (but not over obedience to the Law). – Paul A. Clayton Feb 11 '13 at 15:20
  • @Anixx he did not , more ever the charges leveled against him were false , he never claimed divinity , the charge was that he claimed to be "king of Jews" and not god, even to this charge he did respond by saying , "You said so" – JesusBoughtIslam Feb 20 '13 at 17:38
  • 1
    @NotMyWill-butGodWillBedone The Jewish leaders certainly thought He claimed to be the Son of God: The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” John 19:7 – Narnian Apr 19 '13 at 13:54
  • 4
    @NotMyWill-butGodWillBedone That is not accurate. Jesus went out of His way to affirm His own deity. John 5:18 "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." – Narnian Apr 19 '13 at 14:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.