As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ He answered him, ‘You say so.’ Then the chief priests accused him of many things. Pilate asked him again, ‘Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.’ But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed. (Mark 15: 1-5)

The Gospel of Luke provides a slightly different chronology and a specific set of charges. According to Luke 27 the Chief Priests told the Roman Prefect, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King."

What the accusers authentically - if inaccurately - perceived as blasphemous to God, they twisted into a charge of political sedition. Those making the charges were confident that Jesus was misleading the nation. Jesus had admitted to being the Son of Man. Given the common understanding of the Messiah role this could be honestly characterized as a king. The issue of taxes was at best over-reaching, but the accusers may well have convinced themselves that this too was true.

I perceive that Jesus was hauled before an "executive committee" of the Sanhedren. This was not the whole council, but it was a smaller set recognized as having authority to act on behalf of the council. While this group was probably predisposed against Jesus, there was enough concern for due process and quality of evidence that, according to the gospel accounts, if Jesus had said nothing there was insufficient cause for action.

But when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God this was profoundly offensive. They were sure that under their laws he deserved to die. But they no longer had authority to put a criminal to death. The Roman's had taken away this authority and held it for their own purposes. I expect someone or maybe two or three were assigned to draft an indictment that could be taken to the Romans.

It was now very late. They had been up all night. They were convinced of their own righteousness and the guilt of Jesus. They drafted charges that translated their authentic concerns into a framework that would best persuade the Roman Prefect to take action consistent with what they were certain represented a just outcome.

What I read seems very familiar to me. These are not self-consciously evil men exulting in treacherous action. Rather, these are men jealous of their honor and propriety. They are scrupulous in their understanding of right and wrong. They are committed to operating within the bounds of a system which they perceive as being committed to justice and truth.

They are also convinced of their own righteousness. When we reduce the adversaries of Jesus to the simply evil we are being inattentive to scripture, unfair to them, and - most importantly -way too easy on ourselves.

Above is Christ before Pilate by Duccio di Buoninsegna.