Jesus alone was arrested; and although he had not individually offered any active resistance, and had even restrained that of his disciples, they bound him as a malefactor; which was a criminal degree of rigour, since for the purpose of securing a single man by a numerous band of persons armed with swords and staves it was not necessary. “Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?” Luke xxii. 52.
Section IV.—Other Irregularities in the Arrest.—Seizure of the Person.
They dragged Jesus along with them; and, instead of taking him directly to the proper magistrate, they carried him before Annas, who had no other character than that of being father-in-law to the high priest. John xviii. 13. Now, if this was only for the purpose of letting him be seen by him, such a curiosity was not to be gratified; it was a vexatious proceeding, an irregularity.
From the house of Annas they led him to that of the high priest; all this time being bound. John xviii. 24. They placed him in the court yard; it was cold, and they made a fire; it was in the night time, but by the light of the fire Peter was recognised by the people of the palace.
Now the Jewish law prohibited all proceedings by night; here, therefore, there was another infraction of the law.
Under this state of things, his person being forcibly seized and detained in a private house, and delivered into the hands of servants, in the midst of a court, how was Jesus treated? St. Luke says, the men that held Jesus mocked him and smote him; and when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. Luke xxii. 63, 64, 65.
Will it be said, as Mr. Salvador does, that all this took place out of the presence of the senate? Let us wait, in this instance, till the senate shall be called up, and we shall see how far they protected the accused person.
Section V.—Captious Interrogatories.—Acts of Violence towards Jesus.
Already had the cock crowed! But it was not yet day. The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and, having caused Jesus to appear before their council, they proceeded to interrogate him. Luke xxii. 66.
Now, in the outset, it should be observed, that if they had been less carried away by their hatred, they should, as it was the night time, not only have postponed, but put a stop to the proceedings, because it was the feast of the Passover, the most solemn of all festivals; and according to their law no judicial procedure could take place on a feast-day, under the penalty of being null.[403] Nevertheless, let us see who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain a judge, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself the accuser of Jesus.[404] Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to be deserving of death. He said to his colleagues, that “it was expedient that one man should die for all.” John xviii. 14. [pg 550] Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised, if he shows partiality.