Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
The law forbids judging or condemning anyone before hearing him and examining what he has done. It holds every person innocent until proved guilty, requiring that the accused know the charges and have opportunity to answer, rather than accepting reports and accusations as proof. Nicodemus, as a ruler and member of the Sanhedrin, appealed to this rule to oppose the plan to condemn Jesus to death without a fair hearing, showing that he had become enlightened and a true believer. It was as far as his fearful, secret faith then dared to go, yet his protest confounded the rulers so they could not justly condemn Jesus unheard and stopped their unanimous action for the time. Prejudice led them to answer him with derision and refuse Jesus a fair hearing, and the priests later condemned themselves by their own standard when they seized and abused Jesus through secret proceedings in his absence.
Fair Hearing Required by Law
The law lays down the rule that no one is to be judged or condemned before he is heard and before what he does is known and examined. It requires that a person be heard and his actions and conduct examined before judgment is passed, and it forbids condemning him unheard and without a fair hearing. Applied to its own council, it demands that its own law be used fairly, so that condemning without first hearing fairly is challenged as unlawful procedure. When that appeal was made, the rulers could not justly condemn unheard, were unable to carry condemnation through, and were kept by prejudice from giving a fair hearing despite the wisdom and weight of the question. Their answer was derision and contempt, asking whether the questioner was also of Galilee and claiming that no prophet arises out of Galilee.
That same rule treats every person as innocent until proved guilty. The priests' own standard therefore condemned their secret proceedings, seizure, and abuse before any proper accusation, because those acts violated what their own rule required. Justice under this rule means that a person accused of wrongdoing must know the charges and have a chance to answer them before judgment is made. Reports and accusations are not to be accepted as proof without letting the accused explain or clear herself.
The rule was invoked in the setting where officers sent to arrest Jesus returned without him, amazed by his words and works. It belongs also to the setting in which some rulers believed in him but feared acknowledging it before the people.
Nicodemus Defends Jesus
Nicodemus, as a chief ruler and member of the Sanhedrin, appealed to the law's demand that a man be heard and his deeds known and examined before judgment, to oppose and protest the council's plan and measures to condemn Jesus and secure His death without a fair hearing. His question whether the law condemns a person before hearing him and learning what he has done challenged the priests' treatment of Christ and the grounds for His arrest and condemnation. His intervention showed he had become enlightened and a true believer, with changed understanding and willingness to stand against the effort to put Jesus to death.
It was as far as he then dared to go, for though stirred by Jesus' teaching and wonderful works until conviction fastened upon his mind that He was sent from God, he was too proud to openly acknowledge sympathy with the Galilean Teacher and too fearful to openly identify with Christ for fear of the Jews. After a secret night interview in which Jesus unfolded the plan of salvation and His mission to the world, he hid the truth in his heart and hesitated for three years with little apparent fruit and without publicly acknowledging Christ. Together with Joseph of Arimathea he kept faith in Jesus secret in order to keep their seats and their power to aid and protect Him by influence, since open confession would bring exclusion from the council because of the prejudice of the priests and elders toward Jesus.
Having seen and heard Him and received light from His teaching, he could not dismiss Him as an impostor and could have testified that no one spoke as Christ did. He therefore urged the temple leaders to act with moderation toward Jesus, because rejecting His warnings would be perilous if His authority came from God. His appeal to the law challenged the unfair procedure and briefly confounded the rulers, so that they could not justly condemn Jesus unheard. It stopped their proceedings for the time by preventing unanimous agreement to condemn Him, and the council dispersed without accomplishing its purpose.
Though his question was wise and carried weight, prejudice kept the rulers from giving Jesus a fair hearing. Angered that one of their own spoke in His defense, they answered with derision and contempt rather than considering his appeal. They asked if he was also of Galilee and claimed no prophet arises out of Galilee, a rejection rooted in stifled conviction and prejudice rather than lack of evidence. Later Joseph and Nicodemus together exposed the weakness and fallacy of the case, protested His arrest, and insisted He could not justly be condemned without a proper hearing. Their defense repeatedly caused the council to break up without its purpose, because condemnation of Jesus required the unanimous consent of the Sanhedrin, until the priests obtained their object only by calling a secret council to which Joseph and Nicodemus were not summoned. So Nicodemus had previously helped prevent condemnation but was absent when death was planned, not present when the council condemned Jesus, and unable to use his voice to change or lessen the sentence. The priests' own rule treated every person as innocent until proved guilty, so their secret proceedings, seizure of Jesus, and abuse before any proper accusation violated that rule and condemned them by their own standards.
The law forbids judging or condemning anyone before hearing him and examining what he has done. It holds every person innocent until proved guilty, requiring that the accused know the charges and have opportunity to answer, rather than accepting reports and accusations as proof. Nicodemus, as a ruler and member of the Sanhedrin, appealed to this rule to oppose the plan to condemn Jesus to death without a fair hearing, showing that he had become enlightened and a true believer. It was as far as his fearful, secret faith then dared to go, yet his protest confounded the rulers so they could not justly condemn Jesus unheard and stopped their unanimous action for the time. Prejudice led them to answer him with derision and refuse Jesus a fair hearing, and the priests later condemned themselves by their own standard when they seized and abused Jesus through secret proceedings in his absence.
Fair Hearing Required by Law
The law lays down the rule that no one is to be judged or condemned before he is heard and before what he does is known and examined. It requires that a person be heard and his actions and conduct examined before judgment is passed, and it forbids condemning him unheard and without a fair hearing. Applied to its own council, it demands that its own law be used fairly, so that condemning without first hearing fairly is challenged as unlawful procedure. When that appeal was made, the rulers could not justly condemn unheard, were unable to carry condemnation through, and were kept by prejudice from giving a fair hearing despite the wisdom and weight of the question. Their answer was derision and contempt, asking whether the questioner was also of Galilee and claiming that no prophet arises out of Galilee.
That same rule treats every person as innocent until proved guilty. The priests' own standard therefore condemned their secret proceedings, seizure, and abuse before any proper accusation, because those acts violated what their own rule required. Justice under this rule means that a person accused of wrongdoing must know the charges and have a chance to answer them before judgment is made. Reports and accusations are not to be accepted as proof without letting the accused explain or clear herself.
The rule was invoked in the setting where officers sent to arrest Jesus returned without him, amazed by his words and works. It belongs also to the setting in which some rulers believed in him but feared acknowledging it before the people.
Nicodemus Defends Jesus
Nicodemus, as a chief ruler and member of the Sanhedrin, appealed to the law's demand that a man be heard and his deeds known and examined before judgment, to oppose and protest the council's plan and measures to condemn Jesus and secure His death without a fair hearing. His question whether the law condemns a person before hearing him and learning what he has done challenged the priests' treatment of Christ and the grounds for His arrest and condemnation. His intervention showed he had become enlightened and a true believer, with changed understanding and willingness to stand against the effort to put Jesus to death.
It was as far as he then dared to go, for though stirred by Jesus' teaching and wonderful works until conviction fastened upon his mind that He was sent from God, he was too proud to openly acknowledge sympathy with the Galilean Teacher and too fearful to openly identify with Christ for fear of the Jews. After a secret night interview in which Jesus unfolded the plan of salvation and His mission to the world, he hid the truth in his heart and hesitated for three years with little apparent fruit and without publicly acknowledging Christ. Together with Joseph of Arimathea he kept faith in Jesus secret in order to keep their seats and their power to aid and protect Him by influence, since open confession would bring exclusion from the council because of the prejudice of the priests and elders toward Jesus.
Having seen and heard Him and received light from His teaching, he could not dismiss Him as an impostor and could have testified that no one spoke as Christ did. He therefore urged the temple leaders to act with moderation toward Jesus, because rejecting His warnings would be perilous if His authority came from God. His appeal to the law challenged the unfair procedure and briefly confounded the rulers, so that they could not justly condemn Jesus unheard. It stopped their proceedings for the time by preventing unanimous agreement to condemn Him, and the council dispersed without accomplishing its purpose.
Though his question was wise and carried weight, prejudice kept the rulers from giving Jesus a fair hearing. Angered that one of their own spoke in His defense, they answered with derision and contempt rather than considering his appeal. They asked if he was also of Galilee and claimed no prophet arises out of Galilee, a rejection rooted in stifled conviction and prejudice rather than lack of evidence. Later Joseph and Nicodemus together exposed the weakness and fallacy of the case, protested His arrest, and insisted He could not justly be condemned without a proper hearing. Their defense repeatedly caused the council to break up without its purpose, because condemnation of Jesus required the unanimous consent of the Sanhedrin, until the priests obtained their object only by calling a secret council to which Joseph and Nicodemus were not summoned. So Nicodemus had previously helped prevent condemnation but was absent when death was planned, not present when the council condemned Jesus, and unable to use his voice to change or lessen the sentence. The priests' own rule treated every person as innocent until proved guilty, so their secret proceedings, seizure of Jesus, and abuse before any proper accusation violated that rule and condemned them by their own standards.