When Pilate declared, "I find no reason for a charge against this man," he was saying that Jesus had done nothing, that Jesus had no fault, that there was nothing blamable in this case. In essence, Pilate was saying that Jesus was sinless! Can you imagine? From the mouth of a pagan, Roman governor comes the proclamation of truth about Christ, while the religious leaders were screaming for crucifixion. Could part of the problem have been the way the Jerusalem leaders looked at Jews from Galilee? There was a definite divide between them in the religious culture of that day. Jesus was considered to be one of "those" people from Galilee who could not possibly have known better than "us," the elite of Jerusalem!

When Pilate saw Jesus, he didn't seem to be worried about Jesus as a king. After all, the man before him looked bloodied and beaten already. But if Pilate had been able to see Jesus as the King described in the book of Revelation, he would have had a completely different response. So would the lost world today.

When the Jewish religious leaders brought Jesus to Pilate for trial, what were the charges they levied against Jesus? Which of those charges was Pilate most concerned about? Why was this Roman governor worried about what those religious leaders wanted? Why did he feel the need to cater to them? And just who was Pilate anyway?

When Jesus' trial before Caiaphas was over, He was not taken immediately to Pilate by the religious leaders. He was, instead, bound and put back in prison until daybreak when He was once again put on trial, but this time by the whole Sanhedrin. Why the delay and the extra trial? It has to do with rules and regulations which, even though they were breaking so many of them, the Sanhedrin members tried to make it look as though everything they did was right and legal.

Talk about trumped-up charges! When Jesus was arrested and put on trial before the high priest, Caiaphas, the court of the Sanhedrin had already decided not only the verdict, but the one and only charge as well. It had to be nothing else other than blasphemy. Why? And what about Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea? They were members of the Sanhedrin, but they said nothing in defense of Jesus during this trial. Why?

During His trial before Caiaphas, Jesus was found guilty (although He wasn't) of blasphemy. What was blasphemy, exactly? Also, during the trial, Jesus chose to answer some questions, but refused to answer others. What was the difference between those questions? The answer is actually found in the Old Testament, in the books of Daniel and the Psalms.

When Jesus was on trial before Caiaphas, the high priest, many "witnesses" were brought forward to testify in the hopes that some charge could be brought against Him. Finally, two witnesses were found with a somewhat similar story, but it differed in some important ways from what Jesus had actually said. Was this the reason that Jesus refused to answer Caiaphas at first? These things and more were all part of a trial that was not a trial at all.

Jesus' trial before Annas was over and He was taken next to the current high priest, Caiaphas, for another interrogation. During these two trials, the religious leaders broke eighteen rules which were required for any verdict to be legally valid and binding. What were those rules, and why was it so risky to be a witness to a crime back then?