Mark 14:55-65

3. JESUS BEFORE THE COUNCIL 14:55-65

TEXT 14:55-65

Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not. For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. And not even so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy; what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 14:55-65

839.

Why were the chief priests and the whole council so determined to put Jesus to death?

840.

Just what was involved in the testimony of witnesses? Why were they unable to find witnesses?

841.

What was unequal about the testimony of the witnesses?

842.

Why were the authorities so opposed to Jesus? Please attempt to be specific.

843.

Read John 2:19 and show how the words of Jesus were twisted to say what Jesus did not say. Cf. Mark 13:2.

844.

Why the personal attempt on the part of the high priest to provoke a response from Jesus?

845.

Why did Jesus answer the second question but not the first one?

846.

What was the purpose of our Lord in speaking of the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power?

847.

What is suggested in the action of the high priest in tearing his clothes?

848.

Just what was the specific charge of the blasphemy?

849.

Are we to understand the members of the Sanhedrim spit upon Jesus?

850.

Are we to understand the members of the Sanhedrim spat upon Jesus? What was the cause of such intense hatred?

COMMENT

TIME.Early Friday morning, April 7, A.D. 30, between one and six o-'clock. This meeting took place before the dawn of day on Friday morning.
PLACE.The palace of Caiaphas, the high priest in Jerusalem. The exact location of the palace of Caiaphas is unknown, but it was probably not far from the temple.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 26:59-75. The trial (Mark 14:55-65) is found in Luke 22:63-71 and John 18:19-24.

ORDER OF EVENTS.After the arrest, and its incidents: (1) Jesus was taken first to the house of Annas, ex-high priest (John 18:13), (2) Next to the palace of Caiaphas, Peter and John following (John 18:15). (3) Here was a preliminary examination before Caiaphas (John 18:19-24. (4) The trial before the council, illegal because held at nightbefore three o-'clock the cock-crowing (Matthew 26:59-65. Mark 14:55-64). (5) Peter's three denials during the trial (Matthew 26:69-75. Mark 14:66-72). (6) After the Sanhedrim had pronounced him guilty, it suspends its session till break of day. (7) During this interval Jesus is exposed to the insults of his enemies (Matthew 26:67-68. Mark 14:65. Luke 22:63-65). (8) At the dawn of day the Sanhedrim reassembles (Matthew 27:1. Mark 15:1. Luke 22:66). (9) After hearing Christ's confession again, he is formally condemned to death for blasphemy (Luke 22:66-71.) (10) He is bound, and sent to Pilate (Mark 15:1).

OUTLINE.1. False Witness Against Christ. 2. The Lord bears Witness. 3. The Lord Condemned to Die.

ANALYSIS

I.

FALSE WITNESS AGAINST CHRIST, Mark 14:55-59.

1.

False Testimony Sought. Mark 14:15; Matthew 26:59.

2.

The False Witnesses fail to Agree. Mark 14:56; Matthew 26:50; 1 Peter 3:16.

3.

The False Witness Concerning the Temple. Mark 14:57-59; Matthew 26:51.

II.

THE LORD BEARS WITNESS, Mark 14:60-62.

1.

The High Priest Examines Christ. Mark 14:60; Matthew 26:52.

2.

The Silence of Christ. Mark 14:61; Matthew 26:63; Isaiah 53:7.

3.

The Great and Good Confession. Mark 14:62; Matthew 26:64.

III.

THE LORD CONDEMNED TO DIE, Mark 14:63-65.

1.

The High Priest Pronounces Judgment. Mark 14:63; Matthew 26:65.

2.

The Sanhedrim Votes the Death of Christ. Mark 14:64; Matthew 26:66.

3.

The Lord Abused and Insulted. Mark 14:65; Matthew 26:67.

INTRODUCTION

I. THE COURT. The court convened to try Jesus Christ was the Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin. It consisted of chief priests, that is, the heads of the twenty-four priestly classes; scribes, that is, rabbis learned in the literature of the church; and elders, who were chosen from amongst the most influential of the laity. Jewish tradition puts the number of members at seventy-one. The high priest usually presided: the vice-president sat at his right hand. The other councilors were ranged in front of these two in the form of a semicircle. Two scribes or clerks attended, who on criminal trials registered the votes, one for acquittal, the other for condemnation.Abbott. The priests were there, whose greed and selfishness he had exposed; and, worse than all, the worldly, sceptical Sadducees, the most cruel and dangerous of opponents, whose empty sapience he had confuted,Farrar. The Sanhedrin had power to try those charged with capital offences, but it had no power to execute the sentence of death (John 18:31).

II. THE TRIAL. The whole criminal procedure in the Pentateuch rests upon three principles: (1) publicity of the trial, (2) entire liberty of defence allowed to the accused, and (3) a guaranty against the dangers of testimony: one witness is no witness. There must be at least two or three who know the facts.M. Dupin. Throughout the whole course of the trial, the rules of Jewish law of procedure were grossly violated, and the accused was deprived of rights belonging even to the meanest citizen. He was arrested in the night, bound as a malefactor, beaten before his arraignment, and struck in open court during the trial. He was tried on a feast-day, and before sunrise. He was compelled to criminate himself, and this under an oath of solemn judicial adjuration; and he was sentenced on the same day of the conviction. In all these particulars the law was wholly disregarded.Prof. Greenleaf's Trial of Jesus, in the Testimony of the Evangelists.

III. THE ACCUSATION. The crime for which Jesus was condemned before the Sanhedrin was his alleged blasphemy; i.e., an assumption of power and authority which belonged to Jehovah alone (Matthew 26:65). But when he was brought before Pilate they changed the accusation to one of treason against the Roman government, as the only one of which Pilate would take cognizance (Luke 23:2).

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I. FALSE WITNESS AGAINST CHRIST.

Mark 14:55. The chief priests, Annas and Caiaphas, the ex-high priest and the acting high priest, and the heads of the twenty-four courses. All the council. The priests just named and certain scribes and elders to the number of seventy-one (see Introduction) constituted the Sanhedrim, or council. Geikie says: In imitation of the traditional usages of the Sanhedrin, while it existed, the judges before whom Jesus was led sat, turbaned, on cushions or pillows, in Oriental fashion, with crossed legs, and unshod feet, in a half circle; Caiaphas, as high priest, in the center, and the chief or oldest, according to precedence, on each side. The prisoner was placed, standing before Caiaphas; at each end of the semicircle sat a scribe, to write out the sentence of acquittal or condemnation; some bailiffs, with cords and thongs, guarded the accused, while a few others stood behind, to call witnesses, and, at the close, to carry out the decision of the judges. Sought for witness. Not to ascertain the truth, but to destroy one whom they considered a personal enemy, was this trial conducted. Found one. It was necessary to find two who had been present at the same or a precisely similar offense, whatever it might be. The difficulty, then, was not that they found none, as the English Bible renders it, but, as the Greek words literally mean, they did not find (what they were seeking,) i.e., probably, two witnesses to one and the same act. It would have been strange indeed if no one could be found to testify at all; but it was not strange that they found it hard to obtain two concurrent witnesses to one and the same thing.Alexander.

Mark 14:56. Many bare false witness. The charge against Jesus of declaring himself the Son of the God and so making himself equal with God (John 10:33), was one which it was impossible to substantiate by any witnesses outside the immediate circle of Christ's disciples, for his ministry had been one of singularly commingled boldness and cautionboldness in the truths he uttered, caution in the methods of his utterance. He never publicly proclaimed himself the Messiah. He forbade the evil spirits from announcing his character. Mark 1:34. He received the confession of his disciples, but refused to permit them to repeat it to others. Matthew 16:20. Interrogated by the Jews whether he was the Christ, he had refused a direct reply, and had referred them to his works. John 10:24-25. He had given the same response to the public questioning of John's disciples. In most of his later ministry he had veiled his meaning in parables. Hence the witnesses were contradictory and failed to meet the demands of the law.

Mark 14:57. There arose certain. At least two were found who were willing to give a distorted version of something Christ had said over two years before.

Mark 14:58. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple. The false witness consisted in giving that sense to his words which it appears by Matthew 27:63 they knew they did not bear. There is perhaps a trace, in the different reports of Matthew and Mark, of the discrepancy between the witnesses. There is considerable difference between the words attributed to him here, and there. These witnesses falsely reported his words, and failed also to understand what he did say but gave a new version according to their understanding.

Mark 14:59. Neither so did their witness agree. Their statements varied so much that there was not sufficient testimony on any one point to convict. Therefore this first plan failed.

II.

THE LORD BEARS WITNESS.

Mark 14:60. The high priest stood up. Thus far, during all the wicked attempts to torture testimony against him the Lord had maintained unbroken silence. This was galling to the pride of Caiaphas, who saw that nothing remained but to force him, if possible, to criminate himself. In the midst. The high priest, leaving his official seat, came forward into the middle of the semi-circle, in which the members of the Sanhedrim were seated. The accused stood facing them, so that the high priest was then immediately side by side with our Lord. Answerest thou nothing? The question implies a long-continued silence, while witness after witness were uttering clumsy falsehoods. In the silence itself we may perhaps trace a deliberate fulfilment of Isaiah 53:7. What is it which these witness? The first object of Caiphas was to draw out an answer to the allegations, which, as he well knew, would not suffice, as they then stood, for condemnation.

Mark 14:61. But he held his peace. It was no part of his duty, as a defendant, to unravel the contradictions of his unprincipled accusers. Our Lord was silent; for in answering he must have opened to them the meaning of his words, which was not the work of this hour, nor fitting for that audience. Truth is never mute for want of arguments of defence, but sometimes silent, out of holy wisdom. Said unto him. I adjure thee (Matthew 26:63). This was the regular legal formula for administering oaths, and was binding on witnesses without their answering (Leviticus 5:1). Art thou the Christ? Caiaphas became desperate, and adopted a resource which our own rules of evidence would declare most infamous, and which was also wholly adverse to the first principles of Mosaic jurisprudence, and the like of which occurs in no circumstance of Hebrew history. It was that of putting the prisoner upon his oath to answer questions framed for his own crimination.Kitto.

Mark 14:62. And Jesus said, I am. His declaration of his divine Sonship constitutes Christ's solemn testimony to himself, uttered at the momentous crisis of his life, under the solemn sanction of an oath, in the course of judicial proceedings, in the presence of the highest council of the realm, in the far more sacred presence of God and his recording angels, at the peril of his life, and with a clear comprehension of the meaning which not only priests and people would attach to it, but with which it would be forever invested by humanity. If it had not been true it would have been blasphemy,Abbott. Ye shall see. The shall ye see is to the council, the representatives of the chosen people, so soon to be judged by him to whom all judgment is committedthe power in contrast to his present weaknesssitting, even as they now sat, to judge him; and the coming in the clouds of heaven (see Daniel 7:13) looks onward to the awful time of the end, when every eye shall see him.Alford. Let it be noted that this is the Lord's first formal, public declaration of his divinity. He now offered up his life in attestation of his Messiahship and divine character.

III.

THE LORD CONDEMNED TO DIE.

Mark 14:63. The high priest rent his clothes. The act was almost as much a formal sign of condemnation as the putting on of the black cap by an English judge.Plumptre. The practice of rending the clothes on occasions of supposed blasphemy was based on 2 Kings 18:37. Originally it was a natural outburst of intense grief, and was involuntary; but at a later period it became a mere form regulated by special rules. The rent made in the garment was from the neck downward, and about a span in length. The body dress and outer garment were left untouched.Lange. What need we any further witnesses? They had called but one true witness; his testimony they rejected; and yet on the strength of his testimony they were about to condemn him !

Mark 14:64. Ye have heard the blasphemy. Blasphemy here denotes reproachful, irreverent, or insulting language concerning God, or any of his names or attributes. Such would be the making God to be only like a man. Hence, had Jesus not been the Messiah, what he said would have been blasphemy. What think ye? A formal putting of the question. And they all. It may therefore be inferred that none had been summoned who were known or suspected to favor our Lord, though they may have been called to the more formal council at daybreak. Condemned him. This formal condemnation was, as they imagined, according to the law (Leviticus 24:16). Compare Deuteronomy 18:20. The Sanhedrim was forbidden to investigate any capital crime during the night, and according to the Roman law a sentence pronounced before dawn was not valid. This test vote, however, they considered as settling the question.Schaff. The council now adjourned, to meet at daybreak, when they could legally pronounce the sentence. In the mean time occurred the maltreatment by his lawless enemies described in the next verse. The daybreak meeting, at which the sentence already pronounced was formally ratified, is described in Luke 22:66-71. John only relates the examination before Annas; Matthew and Mark give the account of the packed and illegal meeting of the Sanhedrim before day, presided over by Caiaphas. Luke only gives the account of the ratification meeting of the Sanhedrim at the dawn of day. All the accounts must be studied in order to get the full account of the Jewish condemnation of the Lord.

Mark 14:65. Began to spit on him. One under sentence of death was always, in these rough ages, the sport of mockery of his guards, and those in charge of Jesus, made worse than common by the example of the judges, vented their cruelty on him with the coarsest brutality. Their passions, indeed, intensified their bitterness, for they were fierce Jewish bigots.Geikie. To say unto him, Prophesy. He who claims to be chief of the prophets should now give us a specimen of his prophetic powers. He was blindfolded, so that they were putting his prophetic powers to a mock test. Compare these insults before the Jews, which alluded to his claims of Messiahship with the insults by the Romans, which alluded to his political claims.

FACT QUESTIONS 14:55-65

1038.

Please retrace carefully the three incidents leading to the trial of Jesus and the seven following.

1039.

How many chief priests in the council? From whence did they come?

1040.

Who were the scribes? the elders?

1041.

Who presided? How was the condemnation or acquittal recorded?

1042.

Show why each class in the Sanhedrim were adverse in their opinion of Jesus.

1043.

The whole criminal procedure in the Pentateuch rests upon three principleswhat were they?

1044.

Show at least four particulars in which throughout the course of his trial the rules of Jewish law were grossly violated.

1045.

What were the two accusations brought against Jesus?

1046.

Why did the council seek a witness?

1047.

The problem was not that they could not find witnesses but rather in the quality of the ones they foundexplain.

1048.

Why would it be almost impossible to substantiate the charge of Jesus declaring Himself to be the Son of God?

1049.

When had anyone heard Him say I will destroy this temple? Cf. Matthew 27:63.

1050.

The testimony of the witnesses was rejectedwhy?

1051.

Why did Caiaphas stand up in the midst of the council?

1052.

Show how Isaiah 53:7 was fulfilled in the trial.

1053.

What did Caiaphas hope to do in any testimony Jesus would give?

1054.

Truth is never mute for want of arguments of defense, but sometimes silent out of___________ ___________.

1055.

In what manner did Caiaphas attempt to cause Christ to criminate Himself?

1056.

Please read Abbott's beautiful comment under Mark 14:62. And Jesus said, I amgive three or four of the momentous circumstances attending this confession.

1057.

To whom did Jesus address the words Ye shall see? Why did He make such a stupendous prediction? Cf. Daniel 7:13.

1058.

What significance was there in the rent clothes of the high priest? How did the practice originate?

1059.

The claim of Jesus would have been indeed blasphemy except for one factwhat was it?

1060.

Who was called to this Council meeting? When was it held?

1061.

Read Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 18:20 and show how the Council felt they had acted according to lawShow two particulars where they had not.

1062.

In what sense was a test vote taken?

1063.

Between the early morning meeting and daybreak what happened in the treatment of Jesus?

1064.

Who spit on Jesus?

1065.

Read Luke 22:66-71 for the daybreak meeting.

1066.

When was Jesus tried before Annas?

1067.

How can we imagine the dignified religious elders of the supreme court spitting on anyone?

1068.

The Jews mocked Jesus for one claim, the Romans for anotherwhat were the claims? Were they true?