Deuteronomy 19:15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.
What a wise provision this is! I was thinking about it this morning and Christ’s “trial” came into mind. His accusers were forced to abide by this rule, and it must have proved most inconvenient in their circumstances. They wanted Jesus dead, but they could only get there if two or three witnesses would agree on some offence they saw or heard Him commit. Here is one of the accounts that we have:
Mark 14:53–65 And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. 54 And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ” 59 Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 61 But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.
Note, first of all a quite obvious but important fact. There were no truthful witnesses who could bring testimony against Jesus that would demonstrate that He had sinned. Jesus had even challenged the people of His day publicly to come forward with a charge against Him:
John 8:46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
So right off the bat (and completely paradoxically), the high priest, chief priests, elders and scribes knew that they were going to have to find false testimony about Him if they were going to be able to put Him to death “legally.” Apparently, there was no shortage of false witnesses against Him (v 56). Had the law stipulated that a person could be executed based on the testimony of a single witness, this trial would have been very different. But clearly there were no two “witnesses” who gave the same account about any alleged crimes Jesus had committed. Finally, some stood up and alleged an offence against Him concerning things He had said about the temple. To speak against the temple was a serious matter. The first martyr, Stephen, was put to death because he understood clearly and taught what Jesus had said on the matter. But the false witnesses had misunderstood what Jesus actually said (which was not an offence under the law) and in any case, their testimony wasn’t consistent and so couldn’t be taken as grounds to condemn Jesus.
You can sense the frustration that the proceedings had gone on for some time and there was no evidence (either true or false) that could be used to get rid of Jesus (v 60). So the high priest abandoned the attempt to get Jesus executed by underhanded and dishonest means and adopted an entirely new approach - asking Jesus directly if indeed He was the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus was condemned because He answered that question utterly truthfully in the presence of two or three witnesses! But His accusers already decided that they didn’t want this man to be their king (despite all the signs and wonders He had performed and all the prophecies He had fulfilled to show that that is exactly Who He was). So they condemned Him.
This is important to think about. It is critical to the Gospel that Jesus had no sin of His own to die for. How different it would be if this account had left even the remotest possibility that Jesus had sinned! How different it would be if the record of His sinlessness was not so clear! But here it is - Jesus Christ inadvertently shown to be the spotless Lamb of God by the very ones who would never believe that about Him! The undoubtedly innocent Savior condemned to suffer on the cross for His people; nailed there because He told the truth about Who He is!
The sovereign hand of God is clearly at work in all of this - and not least in making the provision in the law that we began with. Without that provision, Jesus would still have been the spotless Son of God, for sure, but that fact could never have been so clear to everyone. It could never have been so obvious that He was condemned because He openly and honestly confessed Who He is (“the good confession,” as it is called).
God had determined that the sinless Christ had to suffer and die as the only way His justice could be satisfied and yet sinners worthy of death could be acquitted. Yet how could the death penalty be brought against someone Who said no wrong, did no wrong, thought, believed and desired no wrong for His whole life? There cannot be many ways, but what happened by God’s predestination is one of them. And the remarkable thing is that the trial of Jesus really proved His innocence, and found his accusers guilty!
Let’s marvel at the wisdom and the power of God and the perfection of every detail of His plans to save rebellious sinners from the condemnation we deserved!
