Did Ellen White Plagiarize?
Frederic Farrar, William Hanna, Ellen White
A comparative study

by Ulrike

This is the first page comparing Chapter 75 of Desire of Ages, with F. Farrar and W.Hanna's writings on the same events.

On this page we cover the First Trial of Jesus before Annas

Page two: Chapter 75, The Second Trial, before Caiaphas
Page three: Chapter 75, Peter at the Trial
Page four: Chapter 75, The Third Trial Before the Sanhedrin

Following I have simply placed the accounts of each writer, as they wrote the story. Similar words have been highlighted but the reader can compare and see not only the similarites but also the difference. Also Farrar devoted much more space to introducing us to the Sanhedrin then the other authors. Also both Farrar and Ellen White portray three trials before Christ is taken to Pilate, while W. Hanna portrays only two.

This study is still underway,

purple = Farrar's similarities
red =Hanna's similarities
underlined = Similarities between Farrar and Hanna (in the processes)
Green shows words with similar meaning but not the same.
Bolded = Quotes directly from the Bible

Frederic Farrar
"The Life of Christ"

Publisher: A.L. Burt Company, NY

William Hanna
"The Lord's Life on Earth"

Publisher: The Religious Tract Society, Londan

Ellen White
"The Desire of Ages"

Publisher: Pacific press Assc.


Chapter LVIII
Jesus Before the Priests and the Sanhedrin

Page 455

Reading the Gospels side by side, we soon perceive that of the three successive trials which our Lord underwent at the hands of the Jews, the first only--that before Annas--is related to us by St. John; the second--that before Caiaphas--by St, Matthew and St. Mark; the third--that before the Sanhedrin--by St, Luke alone. Nor is there anything strange in this, since the first was the practical, the second the potential, the third the actual and formal decision, that sentence of death should be passed judicially upon Him. Each of the three trials might, from a different point of view, have been regarded as the most fatal and important of the three. That of Annas was the authoritative prejudicial, that of Caiaphas the real determination, that of the entire Sanhedrin at daybreak the final ratification.

"When the tribune, who commanded the detachment of Roman soldiers, had ordered Jesus to be bound, they led Him away without an attempt at opposition.
(Page 456)
Midnight was already passed as they hurried Him, from the moonlit shadows of green Gethsemane, through the hushed streets of the sleeping city, to the palace of the High Priest. It seems to have been jointly occupied by the prime movers in this black iniquity, Annas and his son-in -law, Joseph Caiaphas. They led Him to Annas first. It is true that this Hanan, son of Seth, the Ananus of Josephus, and Annas of the Evangelists, had only been the actual High Priest for seven years (A.D. 7-14), and that more than twenty years before this period he had been deposed by the Procurator Valerius Gratus. He had been succeeded first by Ismael Ben Phabi, then by his son Eleazar, then by his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas. But the priestly families would not be likely to attach more importance than they chose to a deposition which a strict observer of the Law would have regarded as invalid and sacrilegious; nor would so astute a people as the Jews be likely to lack devices which would enable them to evade the Roman fiat, and to treat Annas, if they wished to do so, as their High Priest de jure, if not de facto Since the days of Herod the Great, the High Priesthood had been degraded, from a permanent religious office, to a temporary secular distinction, and , even had it been otherwise, the rude legionaries would probably care less than nothing to whom they led their victim. If the tribune condescended to ask a question about it, it would be easy for the Captain of the Temple--who may very probably have been at this time, as we know was the case subsequently, one of the sons of Annas himself--to represent Annas as the Sagan or Nasi-- the "Deput" or the President of the Sanhedrin--and so as the proper person to conduct the preliminary investigation.


Page 477











It was close upon the hour of sunrise on that day that Jesus was carried to the praetorian, to be examined by the Roman Governor. Assuming that he entered Gethsemane about midnight, and remained there about an hour, the interval between the Jewish seventh and twelfth hour of the night, or between our one and six o’clock of the morning was spent in the trial before Annas and Caiaphas, both reckoned as High Priests, the one being such de jure, the other de facto. They seem to have been living at this time in the same palace into the hall of which Jesus was carried immediately after his arrest. It was in this hall, and before Annas, that Jesus was subjected to that preliminary informal examination recorded in the eighteenth chapter of the Gospel of St. John. He was to be formally tried, with show at least of law, before the Sanhedrim, the highest of the Jewish courts, but this could not be done at once. Some time was needed to call the members of that court together, and to consult as to the conduct of the trial. Annas was there from the first, awaiting the return of the band sent out to arrest the Savior, His son-in-law Caiaphas was in all likelihood by his side, eager both and ready to proceed.

Chapter 75

Page 698











DA 698.01
Over the brook Kedron, past gardens and olive groves, and through the hushed streets of the sleeping city, they hurried Jesus. It was past midnight, and the cries of the hooting mob that followed Him broke sharply upon the still air. The Saviour was bound and closely guarded, and He moved painfully. But in eager haste His captors made their way with Him to the palace of Annas, the ex-high priest.

DA 698.02
Annas was the head of the officiating priestly family, and in deference to his age he was recognized by the people as high priest. His counsel was sought and carried out as the voice of God. He must first see Jesus a captive to priestly power. He must be present at the examination of the prisoner, for fear that the less-experienced Caiaphas might fail of securing the object for which they were working. His artifice, cunning, and subtlety must be used on this occasion; for, at all events, Christ's condemnation must be secured.

DA 698.03 (1st sentence)
Christ was to be tried formally before the Sanhedrin; but before Annas He was subjected to a preliminary trial.















Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him,

And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

i. Accordingly, it was before Hanan that Jesus stood first as a prisoner at the tribunal (John xvii.13, 19-14). It is probable that he and his family had been originally summoned by Herod the Great from Alexandria, as supple supporters of a distasteful tyranny. The Jewish historian calls this Hanan the happiest man of his time, because he died at an advanced old age, and because both he and five of his sons in succession--not to mention his son-in-law-- had enjoyed the shadow of the High Priesthood; so that, in fact, or nearly half a century he had practically wielded the sacerdotal power.
(Page 457)
But to be admired by such a renegade as Josephus is a questionable advantage. in spite of his prosperity he seems to have left behind him but an evil name, and we know enough of his character, even from the most unsuspected sources, to recognize in him nothing better than an astute, tyrannous, worldly Sadducee, unvenerable for all his seventy years, full of a serpentine malice and meanness which utterly belied the meaning of his name, and engaged at this very moment in a dark, disorderly conspiracy, for which even a worse man would have had cause to blush. It was before this alien and intriguing hierarch that there began, at midnight, the first stage of that long and terrible trial (John xvii. 19-24)

"And there was good reason why St. John should have preserved for us this phase of the trail, and preserved it apparently for the express reason that it had been omitted by the other Evangelists. It is not till after a lapse of years that people can always see clearly the prime mover in events with which they have been contemporary. At the time, the ostensible agent is the one usually regarded as most responsible, though he may be in reality a mere link in the official machinery. But if there were one man who was more guilty than any other of the death of Jesus, that man was Hanan. His advanced age, his preponderant dignity, his worldly position and influence, as one who stood on the best terms with the Herods and the procurators, gave an exceptional weight to his prerogative decision. The mere fact that he should have noticed Jesus at all showed that he attached to His teaching a political significance--showed that he was at least afraid lest Jesus should alienate the people yet more entirely from the pontifical clique than had ever been done by Shemaia or Abtalion. It is most remarkable, and, so far as I know, has scarcely ever been noticed, that, although the Pharisees undoubtedly were actuated by a burning hatred against Jesus, and were even so eager for His death as to be willing to cooperate with the aristocratic and priestly Sadducees--from whom they were ordinarily separated by every kind of difference, political, social and religious--yet, from the moment that the plot for His arrest and condemnation had been matured, the Pharisees took so little part in it that their name is not once directly mentioned in any event connected with the arrest, (458) the trial, the derisions and the crucifixion. The Pharisees, as such, disappear; the chief priests and elder take their place. It is, indeed, doubtful whether any of the more distinguished Pharisees were members of the degraded simulacrum of authority which in those bad days still arrogated to itself the title of a Sanhedrin. If we may believe not a few of the indications of the Talmud, that Sanhedrin was little better than a close, irreligious, unpatriotic confederacy of monopolizing and time-serving priest-- the Boothusim, the Kamhits, the Phabis, the family of Hanan, mostly of on-Palestinian origin--who were supported by the government, but detested by the people, and of whom this bad conspirator was the very life and soul.

But they could not act without their colleagues, nor pronounce any sentence which they might call upon the Roman Governonr at once to ratify and execute. Whilst the messengers, however, are despatched to summon them, and the members of the Sanhedrim are gathering, Annas may prepare the way by sounding Christ, in a far-off, unofficial, conversational manner, and may perhaps extract from his replies some good material upon which the court may afterward proceed. DA 698.03
Under the Roman rule the Sanhedrin could not execute the sentence of death. They could only examine a prisoner, and pass judgment, to be ratified by Roman authorities. It was therefore necessary to bring against Christ charges that would be regarded as criminal by the Romans. An accusation must also be found which would condemn Him in the eyes of the Jews. Not a few among the priests and rulers had been convicted by Christ's teaching, and only fear of excommunication prevented them from confessing Him. The priests well remembered the question of Nicodemus, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" John 7:51. This question had for the time broken up the council, and thwarted their plans. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus were not now to be summoned, but there were others who might dare to speak in favor of justice. The trial must be so conducted as to unite the members of the Sanhedrin against Christ. There were two charges which the priests desired to maintain. If Jesus could be proved a blasphemer, He would be condemned by the Jews. If convicted of sedition, it would secure His condemnation by the Romans.

From earlier pages in Desire of Ages, not from chapter 75

DA.405.002 A deputation of Pharisees had been joined by representatives from the rich and lordly Sadducees, the party of the priests, the skeptics and aristocracy of the nation. The two sects had been at bitter enmity. The Sadducees courted the favor of the ruling power in order to maintain their own position and authority. The Pharisees, on the other hand, fostered the popular hatred against the Romans, longing for the time when they could throw off the yoke of the conqueror. But Pharisee and Sadducee now united against Christ. Like seeks like; and evil, wherever it exists, leagues with evil for the destruction of the good.

DA.538.003 So, as the priests, the rulers, and the elders gathered for consultation, it was their fixed determination to silence Him who did such marvelous works that all men wondered. Pharisees and Sadducees were more nearly united than ever before. Divided hitherto, they became one in their opposition to Christ.

And, perhaps, we may see a further reason for the apparent withdrawal of the Pharisees from all active co-operation in the steps which accompanied the condemnation and execution of Jesus, not only in the superior mildness which is attributed to them. And in their comparative insignificance in the civil administration, but also in their total want of sympathy with those into whose too fatal toils they had delivered the Son of God. There seems, indeed, to be a hitherto unnoticed circumstance which, while it would kindle to the highest degree the fury of the Sadducees, would rather enlist in Christ’s favor the sympathy of their rivals. What had roused the disdainful insouciance of these powerful aristocrats? Morally insignificant--the patrons and adherents of opinions which had so little hold upon the people that Jesus had never directed against them one tithe of the stern denunciation which he had levelled at the Pharisees--they had played but a very minor part in the opposition which had sprung up round the Messiah’s steps. Nay, further than this, they would be wholly at one with Him in rejecting and discountenancing the minute and casuistically frivolities of the Oral Law; they might even have rejoiced that they had in Him a holy and irresistible ally in their opposition to all the Hagadoth and Halachoth which had germinated in a fungous growth over the whole body of the Mosaic institutions. Whence, then, this sudden outburst of the very deadliest and most ruthless opposition? It is a conjecture that has not yet been made, but which the notices of the Talmud bring home to my mind with strong conviction, (459) that the rage of these priest was mainly due to our Lord’s words and acts concerning that House of God which they regarded as their exclusive domain, and above all, to His second public cleansing of the Temple. They could not indeed press this point in their accusations, because the act was one of which secretly at least the Pharisees, in all probability, heartily approved; and had they urged it against Him they would have lost all chance of impressing upon Pilate a sense of their unanimity. The first cleansing might have been passed over as an isolated act of zeal, to which little importance need be attached, while the teaching of Jesus was mainly confined to despised and far-off Galilee; but the second had been more public, and more vehement, and had apparently kindled a more general indignation against the gross abuse which called it forth. Accordingly, in all three Evangelists we find that those who complained of the act are not distinctively Pharisees, but “Chief Priests and Scribes” (Matt. Xxi 15; Mark xi 18; Luke xix 47) who seem at once to have derived from it a fresh stimulus to seek His destruction. But again, it may be asked, Is there any reason beyond this bold infraction of their authority, this indignant repudiation of an arrangement which they had sanctioned, which would have stirred up the rage of these priestly families? Yes--for we may assume from the Talmud that it tended to wound their avarice to interfere with their illicit and greedy gains. Avarice--the besetting sin of Judas--the besetting sin of the Jewish race--seems also to have been the besetting sin of the family of Hanan. It was they who had founded the chanujoth--the famous four shops under the twin cedars of Olivet- in which were sold things legally pure, and which they had manipulated with such commercial cunning as artificially to raise the price of doves to a gold coin apiece, until the people were delivered from this gross imposition by the indignant interference of a grandson of Hillel. There is every reason to believe that the shops which had intruded even under the Temple porticoes were not only sanctioned by their authority, but even managed for their profit. To interfere with these was to rob them of one important source of that wealth and worldly comfort to which they attached such extravagant importance. (460) There was good reason why Hanan, (Annas) the head representative of "the viper brood," as a Talmudic writer calls them, should strain to the utmost his cruel prerogative of power to crush a Prophet whose actions tended to make him and his powerful family at once wholly contemptible and comparatively poor. (continues in next section) (From earlier pages in Desire of Ages not chapter 75:)

DA.603.001 No sooner were the Pharisees silenced than the Sadducees came forward with their artful questions. The two parties stood in bitter opposition to each other. The Pharisees were rigid adherents to tradition. They were exact in outward ceremonies, diligent in washings, fastings, and long prayers, and ostentatious in almsgiving. But Christ declared that they made void the law of God by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. As a class they were bigoted and hypocritical; yet among them were persons of genuine piety, who accepted Christ's teachings and became His disciples. The Sadducees rejected the traditions of the Pharisees. They professed to believe the greater portion of the Scriptures, and to regard them as the rule of action; but practically they were skeptics and materialists.

DA.603.002 The Sadducees denied the existence of angels, the resurrection of the dead, and the doctrine of a future life, with its rewards and punishments. On all these points they differed with the Pharisees. Between the two parties the resurrection was especially a subject of controversy. The Pharisees had been firm believers in the resurrection, but in these discussions their views in regard to the future state became confused. Death became to them an inexplicable mystery. Their inability to meet the arguments of the Sadducees gave rise to continual irritation. The discussions between the two parties usually resulted in angry disputes, leaving them farther apart than before.

DA.604.001 In numbers the Sadducees fell far below their opponents, and they had not so strong a hold upon the common people; but many of them were wealthy, and they had the influence which wealth imparts. In their ranks were included most of the priests, and from among them the high priest was usually chosen. This was, however, with the express stipulation that their skeptical opinions should not be made prominent. On account of the numbers and popularity of the Pharisees, it was necessary for the Sadducees to concede outwardly to their doctrines when holding any priestly office; but the very fact that they were eligible to such office gave influence to their errors.

DA.604.002 The Sadducees rejected the teaching of Jesus; He was animated by a spirit which they would not acknowledge as manifesting itself thus; and His teaching in regard to God and the future life contradicted their theories. They believed in God as the only being superior to man; but they argued that an overruling providence and a divine foresight would deprive man of free moral agency, and degrade him to the position of a slave. It was their belief, that, having created man, God had left him to himself, independent of a higher influence. They held that man was free to control his own life and to shape the events of the world; that his destiny was in his own hands. They denied that the Spirit of God works through human efforts or natural means. Yet they still held that, through the proper employment of his natural powers, man could become elevated and enlightened; that by rigorous and austere exactions his life could be purified.

11.47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
11.48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
11.49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
11.50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
11.51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
11.52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
11.53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
"Such then were the feelings of bitter contempt and hatred with which the ex-high Priest assumed the initiative in interrogating Jesus. The fact that he dared not avow them--nay, was forced to keep them wholly out of sight--would only add to the intensity of his bitterness. Even his method of procedure seems to have been as wholly illegal as was his assumption, in such a place and at such an hour, of any legal function whatever. Anxious, at all hazards, to trump up some available charge of secret sedition, or of unorthodox teaching, he questioned Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine. The answer, for all its calmness, involved a deep reproof. "I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the Temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them. Lo! these"--pointing, perhaps, to the by-standers-- "know what I said to them." The emphatic repetition of the "I" and its unusually significant position at the end of the sentence, show that a contrast was intended; as though He had said, "This midnight, this sedition, this secrecy this indecent mockery of justice, are yours, not mine, There has never been anything esoteric in my doctrine; never anything to conceal in my actions; no hole-and corner plots among my followers. But thou? and thine?" Even the minions of Annas felt the false position of their master under this calm rebuke; they felt that before the transparent innocence of the youthful Rabbi of Nazareth the hoary hypocrisy of the crafty Sadducee was abashed. "Answerest thou the High Priest so? said one of them with a burst of illegal insolence; and then unreproved by this priestly violator of justice, he profaned with the first infamous blow the sacred face of Christ. Then first that face which, as the poet-preacher says, "the angels stare upon with wonder as infants at a bright sunbeam," was smitten by a contemptible slave. (461) The insult was borne with noble meekness. Even St. Paul, when similarly insulted, flaming into sudden anger at such a grossly illegal violence, had scathed the ruffian and his abettor with "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (Acts 23:3) but He, the Son of God-- He who was infinitely above all apostles and all angels--with no flash of anger, with no heightened tone of natural indignation, quietly reproved the impudent transgressor with the words, "If I spoke evil, bear witness concerning the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" It was clear that nothing more could be extorted from Him; that before such a tribunal He would brook no further question. Bound, in sign that he was to be condemned--though unheard and unsentenced--Annas sent Him across the court-yard to Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, who, not by the grace of God, but by the grace of the Roman Procurator, was the titular High Priest. Whilst the messengers, however, are despatched to summon them, and the members of the Sanhedrim are gathering, Annas may prepare the way by sounding Christ, in a far-off, unofficial, conversational manner, and may perhaps extract from his replies some good material upon which the court may afterward proceed. First, then, about his disciples: Annas would like to know, what this gathering of men around him meant; this forming them into a distinct society. By what bond or pledge to one another were the members of this new society united; what secret instructions had they got; what hidden objects had they in view?
Though Christ might not reveal the secrets of this combination, yet, let it but appear--as by his very refusal to give the required information it might be made to do--that an attempt was here being made to organise a confederation all over the country, how easy would it be to awaken the jealousy of the Roman authorities, and get them to believe that some insurrectionary plot was being hatched which it was most desirable at once to crush, by cutting off the ringleader. Such we know to have been the impression so diligently sought to be conveyed into the mind of Pontius Pilate. And Annas began by trying whether he could get Jesus to say anything that should give a colour of truth to such an imputation. Penetrating at once his design, knowing thoroughly what his real meaning and purposes were, our Lord utterly and indignantly denies the charge that was attempted thus to be fastened on him. Neither as to his disciples, nor as to his doctrine,--neither as to the instructions given to his followers, nor as to the bonds of their union and fellowship with one another, had there been anything of the concealed or the sinister; not one doctrine for the people without, and another for the initiated within; no meetings under cloud of night in hidden places for doubtful or dangerous objects. “I spake,” said Jesus, “openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret”-- that is in the sense in which I know that you mean and use the term secret--”have I said nothing; why askest thou me?”

This question tells the judge how naked and bare that hypocritical heart of his lies to the inspection of his prisoner: “Why askest thou me?” Put that question, Annas, to thy heart, and let it answer thee, if it be not so deceitful as to hide its secrets from thine own eyes. “Why askest thou me?” Art thou really so ignorant as thou pretendest to be; thou, who hast had thy spies about me for well-nigh three years, tracking my footsteps, watching my actions, reporting my word s? “Why askest thou me? Dost thou really care to know as these questions of thine would seem to indicate? Then go, “ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said,” A boldness here, a touch of irony, a stroke of rebuke, which, perhaps, our Lord might not have used, had it been upon his seat and in his office as president of the Sanhedrim that the High Priest was speaking to him; had it not been for the mean advantage which he was trying to take of him; had it not been for the cloak of hypocrisy which, in trying to take that advantage, he had assumed. We shall see presently, at least, that our Lord’s tone and manner were somewhat different when his more formal trial came on. Christ’s sharp sententious answer to Annas protected him--and perhaps that was one of its chief purposes--from the repetition and prolongation of the annoyance. It seems to have silenced the High Priest. (479) He had made but little by that way of interrogating his prisoner, and he wisely gives it up. Whatever resentment he cherished at being checked and spoken to in such a manner, he refrained from any expression of it, biding the hour when all his bitter pent-up hatred of the Nazarene might find fitter and fuller vent.

But there was one of his officers who could not so restrain himself, who could not bear to see his master thus as he thought insulted, and who, in the heat of his indignation, struck Christ with the palm of his hand, --some forward official, who thought in this way to earn his master’s favour, but who only earned for himself the unenviable notoriety of having been the first to begin those acts of inhuman violence with which the trial and condemnation of Jesus were so largely and disgracefully interspersed. Others afterwards came forward to mock and jostle and blindfold, and to smite, to spit upon our Lord, to whom he answered nothing; but when that first stroke was inflicted, with the question, “Answerest thou the High Priest so?” Jesus did not receive it in silence. He answered the question by another: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? Best comment this on our Lord’s own precept; “If thy brother smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also;” and a general key to all like scripture precepts, teaching us that the true observance of them lies not in the fulfilment of them as to the letter, but in the possession and exhibition of the spirit which they prescribe. How much easier would it be when smitten upon one cheek, to turn the other for a second stroke, then to be altogether like our Lord in temper and spirit under the infliction of the stroke! More difficult, also, than any silence, to imitate that gentle answer. The lips might be sealed, while the heart was burning with anger. But it was out of the depths of a perfect patience, a gentleness which nothing could irritate, that the saying came: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” “Think” says Chrysostom, “on him who said these words, on him to whom they were said, and on the reason why they were said, and these words will, with divine power, cast down all wrath which may rise within thy soul.”

DA.699.000 The trial must be so conducted as to unite the members of the Sanhedrin against Christ. There were two charges which the priests desired to maintain. If Jesus could be proved a blasphemer, He would be condemned by the Jews. If convicted of sedition, it would secure His condemnation by the Romans. The second charge Annas tried first to establish. He questioned Jesus concerning His disciples and His doctrines, hoping the prisoner would say something that would give him material upon which to work. He thought to draw out some statement to prove that He was seeking to establish a secret society, with the purpose of setting up a new kingdom. Then the priests could deliver Him to the Romans as a disturber of the peace and a creator of insurrection.

DA.699.001 Christ read the priest's purpose as an open book. As if reading the inmost soul of His questioner, He denied that there was between Him and His followers any secret bond of union, or that He gathered them secretly and in the darkness to conceal His designs. He had no secrets in regard to His purposes or doctrines. "I spake openly to the world," He answered; "I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing."

DA.699.002 The Saviour contrasted His own manner of work with the methods of His accusers. For months they had hunted Him, striving to entrap Him and bring Him before a secret tribunal, where they might obtain by perjury what it was impossible to gain by fair means. Now they were carrying out their purpose. The midnight seizure by a mob, the mockery and abuse before He was condemned, or even accused, was their manner of work, not His. Their action was in violation of the law. Their own rules declared that every man should be treated as innocent until proved guilty. By their own rules the priests stood condemned.

DA.699.003 Turning upon His questioner, Jesus said, "Why askest thou Me?" Had not the priests and rulers sent spies to watch His movements, and report His every word? Had not these been present at every gathering of the people, and carried to the priests information of all His sayings and doings? "Ask them which heard Me, what I have said unto them," replied Jesus; "behold, they know what I said."

DA.700.001 Annas was silenced by the decision of the answer. Fearing that Christ would say something regarding his course of action that he would prefer to keep covered up, he said nothing more to Him at this time. One of his officers, filled with wrath as he saw Annas silenced, struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Answerest Thou the high priest so?"

DA.700.002 "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?" He spoke no burning words of retaliation. His calm answer came from a heart sinless, patient, and gentle, that would not be provoked.

DA.700.003 Christ suffered keenly under abuse and insult. At the hands of the beings whom He had created, and for whom He was making an infinite sacrifice, He received every indignity. And He suffered in proportion to the perfection of His holiness and His hatred of sin. His trial by men who acted as fiends was to Him a perpetual sacrifice. To be surrounded by human beings under the control of Satan was revolting to Him. And He knew that in a moment, by the flashing forth of His divine power, He could lay His cruel tormentors in the dust. This made the trial the harder to bear.

DA.700.004 The Jews were looking for a Messiah to be revealed in outward show. They expected Him, by one flash of overmastering will, to change the current of men's thoughts, and force from them an acknowledgment of His supremacy. Thus, they believed, He was to secure His own exaltation, and gratify their ambitious hopes. Thus when Christ was treated with contempt, there came to Him a strong temptation to manifest His divine character. By a word, by a look, He could compel His persecutors to confess that He was Lord above kings and rulers, priests and temple. But it was His difficult task to keep to the position He had chosen as one with humanity.

DA.700.005 The angels of heaven witnessed every movement made against their loved Commander. They longed to deliver Christ. Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men. How easily could the angels, beholding the shameful scene of the trial of Christ, have testified their indignation by consuming the adversaries of God! But they were not commanded to do this. He who could have doomed His enemies to death bore with their cruelty. His love for His Father, and His pledge, made from the foundation of the world, to become the Sin Bearer, led Him to endure uncomplainingly the coarse treatment of those He came to save. It was a part of His mission to bear, in His humanity, all the taunts and abuse that men could heap upon Him. The only hope of humanity was in this submission of Christ to all that He could endure from the hands and hearts of men.

DA.703.001 Christ had said nothing that could give His accusers an advantage; yet He was bound, to signify that He was condemned. There must, however, be a pretense of justice. It was necessary that there should be the form of a legal trial. This the authorities were determined to hasten. They knew the regard in which Jesus was held by the people, and feared that if the arrest were noised abroad, a rescue would be attempted. Again, if the trial and execution were not brought about at once, there would be a week's delay on account of the celebration of the Passover. This might defeat their plans. In securing the condemnation of Jesus they depended largely upon the clamor of the mob, many of them the rabble of Jerusalem. Should there be a week's delay, the excitement would abate, and a reaction would be likely to set in. The better part of the people would be aroused in Christ's favor; many would come forward with testimony in His vindication, bringing to light the mighty works He had done. This would excite popular indignation against the Sanhedrin. Their proceedings would be condemned, and Jesus would be set free, to receive new homage from the multitudes. The priests and rulers therefore determined that before their purpose could become known, Jesus should be delivered into the hands of the Romans.
But first of all, an accusation was to be found. They had gained nothing as yet. Annas ordered Jesus to be taken to Caiaphas.


18.19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

18.20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

18.21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

18.22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so






26.57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

14.53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
22.54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.
18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him,
18.13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
18.14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. 18.19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
18.20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
18.21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
18.22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
18.23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
18.24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
Top of Page

Continue to Page Two, Chapter 75 of Desire of Ages, Dealing with the Trial Before Caiaphas