show himself merciful in healing the ear of Malchus thereby,
counteracting the injury caused by the folly or rashness of one of his
friends.

(B) The Jewish trial. The order of this trial seems to have been
somewhat as follows: (1) A preliminary trial before Annus; (2) A trial
before day with only part of the Sanhedrin present; (3) A trial before
the whole Sanhedrin at daybreak. Knowing his rights Jesus several
times refused to act. (1) He refused to bear testimony because no
legal charge had been made against him. (2) He refused to testify
against himself which was within his right. (3) He demanded that they
bring witnesses because that was just according to law. These last
three points at which Jesus claimed and acted upon his rights instead
of upon their request shows the tendencies of the trial to be unfair
and illegal. If one understands the Jewish law of trial it will be
easy to see how glaringly out of harmony with the law this trial was.
There are at least ten illegalities in it.

(C) The Roman trial. This whole story abounds in evidences of the
prejudice and moral degeneracy of the Jewish leaders. They hated Roman
rule past all words to tell and yet would pretend loyalty to Caesar to
carry out their wicked purpose. By this means they put Pilate in a
position that to release Jesus would make him appear to be untrue to
Caesar in releasing one announced to be Caesar's enemy. The trial may
be studied in the light of the different ones before whom he was
tried. (1) The public and private examination before Pilate. (2) The
examination before Herod. (3) The second examination before Pilate.
This also was partly private and partly public. Again, following he
outline of John, we may consider the events as they happened
alternately outside and inside of the praetorium.