The Final Week of Jesus Part 7: The Trials of Jesus (Friday, April 3, AD 33)
The Garden of Gethsemane
According to Deuteronomy 16:1–7, the Passover meal was to be observed within the sacred boundaries of Jerusalem, which would include the Mount of Olives. This requirement explains why Jesus and his eleven remaining disciples did not return to Bethany, as they had done on previous evenings during the week. Instead, following their meal in the upper room, they left the city and made their way eastward, descending into the Kidron Valley and ascending once more to the Mount of Olives. There, they arrived at the Garden of Gethsemane, a location familiar to the disciples and regularly frequented by Jesus during his time in Jerusalem (John 18:2; Köstenberger & Taylor, 2014, pp. 98–99).
Upon entering the garden, Jesus directed the majority of his disciples to remain at a designated place. At the same time, he proceeded further into the olive grove with Peter, James, and John—his closest companions during his ministry. At this critical moment, the time for instruction and public teaching had come to a close. The narrative instead reveals Jesus entering a state of profound emotional distress as he anticipates the suffering that lies ahead.
Turning to his inner circle, Jesus discloses his anguish with a profoundly human plea: “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me” (Matt. 26:38). In doing so, Jesus demonstrates that his divine nature did not nullify or override his full humanity. As earlier episodes—such as his weeping at Lazarus’s tomb (John 11:35)—make clear, Jesus experienced the full range of human emotion. His request for companionship in Gethsemane highlights this truth: wanting the presence of trusted friends during grief is not a sign of weakness but rather an affirmation of our genuine human need when facing imminent death.
The Trial Before Annas (former high priest and Caiaphas’ father-in-law)
In John’s Gospel, a preliminary hearing was held before Annas, the former high priest and father-in-law of Caiaphas, who maintained influence in the community. Annas interrogated Jesus regarding his teachings and the nature of his discipleship. In response, Jesus affirmatively stated that his teaching had always been public and transparent, implying that Annas’s line of inquiry was not a genuine search for truth but rather an attempt to fabricate grounds for a death sentence (Köstenberger & Taylor, 2014).
When Jesus refused to provide further answers, an officer struck him, a reference likely intended to evoke Exodus 22:28. Jesus asserts his innocence and challenges his accusers to identify any specific wrongdoing on his part. In frustration, Annas then transferred the case to Caiaphas. This marks a transition from an informal inquiry to a formal trial before the Sanhedrin, an essential step that would escalate the case to the Roman governor. It is important to note that had Jesus chosen to renounce his teachings and submit to their authority, he might have evaded conviction entirely.
The Trial Before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin
As Jesus is moved, the Jewish religious authorities (chief priests, elders, and scribes) are urgently convened at the residence of Caiaphas to conduct a swift trial. The reference to the "whole council" likely denotes a quorum of the Sanhedrin rather than that every member was present.
Driven by urgency, they sought to issue a sentence before news of Jesus's arrest could spread and ignite public outcry. However, despite their haste, they failed to secure a consistent witness testimony. Their case ultimately centered on Jesus's remark regarding the destruction and raising of the temple, which they interpreted as a literal threat against the physical temple.
Throughout the proceedings, Jesus is silent in the face of false charges. His refusal is not evasion but evidence of sovereign intent. In doing so, he fulfills the prophetic description of the suffering servant who "opened not his mouth" (Isa. 53:7), signaling both his innocence and the inevitability of the outcome. By withholding a defense, Jesus places the whole moral and legal burden of his condemnation on his accusers, maintaining dignity even in the face of injustice.
The Trial Before Pilate (The First Verdict)
After sentencing Jesus to death, the Sanhedrin faced a legal obstacle: they did not have the legal authority to carry out capital punishment. As a result, they brought Jesus before Pontius Pilate, who held jurisdiction over such cases. While Pilate showed little interest in the theological charges levied by the Jewish leaders, he was compelled to investigate the political implications, particularly Jesus’s alleged claim to kingship.
Pilate directly questioned Jesus about his identity as “King of the Jews,” to which Jesus responded that his kingdom was not of this world, distancing himself from any immediate political threat to Roman authority. Nevertheless, the chief priests escalated their accusations, hoping to frame Jesus as a political insurgent. Keeping with the prophetic imagery of Isaiah 53:7, Jesus remained silent in the face of these renewed charges, allowing the prophetic vision of the suffering servant to unfold.
Although convinced of Jesus’s innocence, Pilate sought to avoid responsibility for the case. Recognizing that Jesus was a Galilean, Pilate transferred the matter to Herod Antipas, who held authority over that region.
The Trial of Before Herod Antipas
Luke uniquely records Jesus’ brief trial before Herod Antipas, who had long wanted to see Jesus perform a miracle, but Jesus refused to answer any of his questions. The chief priests and scribes continued their accusations, likely reiterating the exact political charges made before Pilate. When Jesus neither performed a sign nor defended himself, Herod and his soldiers mocked him, treating him with contempt and dressing him in royal clothing as a sarcastic gesture against his claims to kingship (Köstenberger & Taylor, 2014). Herod, uninterested in resolving Pilate’s dilemma or pursuing justice, sent Jesus back to Pilate after his amusement had ended. Ironically, this shared opposition to Jesus led to Herod and Pilate allying their previous enmity.
The Trial Before Pilate (The Final Verdict)
Pilate initially declares Jesus not guilty but, facing pressure from the Jewish leaders, attempts to appease them by offering to release Jesus or Barabbas, a violent insurrectionist, expecting the crowd to choose Jesus. However, stirred by the Jewish leaders, the crowd demanded Barabbas' release and Jesus' crucifixion, prompting Pilate to have Jesus flogged and mocked by soldiers before presenting him again, hoping to dissuade the crowd.
The Jewish leaders escalate their accusations, claiming Jesus is a political threat to Caesar, which forces Pilate to authorize the crucifixion to preserve his political standing, reluctantly. Despite publicly washing his hands to distance himself from the decision symbolically, Pilate remains responsible for Jesus' execution, an unjust act further emphasized by the Roman practice of brutal scourging before the crucifixion. The timing of Jesus' final sentencing at the sixth hour, aligning with the preparation of the Passover lambs, underscores his role as the sacrificial Lamb of God.
Sources cited or consulted
Köstenberger, A. J., & Taylor, J. (2014). The final days of Jesus: The most important week of the most important person who ever lived. Crossway.