Listen to the podcast of this post by clicking on the player below, and you can also subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or Audible.
Jesus had just been taken from the high priest Caiaphas to the praetorium where the Roman governor Pontius Pilate presided. And then I read one of the most ridiculous statements in this whole crucifixion scenario.
In order for you to grasp the full impact of this outrageous request, let me take you back in time a few hours.
Jesus was arrested by the temple guards without there being any formal charges filed against Him. He was taken to the home of the former high priest for an off-the-record interview to attempt to get Jesus to stumble in something He said so that they would have official charges to lodge against Him.
The Sanhedrin was then convened in the middle of the night. Witnesses were brought in not really to testify as to what they saw or heard, but because the Sanhedrin was “looking for evidence” (Mark 14:55). In the meantime, the Sanhedrin asked Jesus to answer non-existent charges without having any legal representation of His own. They even resorted to physical violence to try to coerce Him to say something incriminating.
The Sanhedrin eventually reached a non-unanimous decision, without any corroborating testimony, to ask Pilate for the death sentence.
Now here comes the silly statement—“Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover” (John 18:28).
To avoid ceremonial uncleanness?!
In their blind fury and rabid self-righteousness, these men broke both mosaic law and their own rules of order. Doing things like:
- not securing charges first before arresting Jesus
- physically abusing Jesus without a conviction or even a proper trial
- meeting at night instead of during the day
- not calling in witnesses one at a time
- not getting corroborating testimony from two or three witnesses
- not allowing Jesus to have a legal advocate
- not getting a unanimous guilty decision before asking for the death sentence
(Check out these passages to read all about the actions of the Sanhedrin on this night.)
After all that, they’re concerned about being ceremonially clean for the Passover? Oh, the silliness!
Then I began to wonder: Am I guilty of this same folly?
Do I keep my own set of rules? Do I justify bending God’s rules because of what I think are special circumstances? Am I self-righteous? Do I really think that I can do things the way that I want to do them and that God will put His stamp of approval on that?
Isn’t it far better to simply follow God’s ways, to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking to my conscience, and then to repent if I begin to deviate from the truth?
I need to always deal with my own self-righteousness first—to take care of the plank in my own eye before I point out the speck in someone else’s eye. Or else, I am being just as silly as those religious leaders were!
You may also be interested in these related blog posts:
- The silence and the words of Jesus during this sham trial—Eloquent Silence and Respectful Boldness
- Some more thoughts about God’s rules versus man’s traditions—What Are Rules For? and Use The Right Term
►► Would you please prayerfully consider supporting this ministry? My Patreon supporters get behind-the-scenes access to exclusive materials. ◀︎◀︎








