St Mark Chapter XIV : Verses 53-65
 |
| Before Caiphas. J-J Tissot. |
[54] And Peter followed him from afar off, even into the court of the high priest; and he sat with the servants at the fire, and warmed himself.
[55] And the chief priests and all the council sought for evidence against Jesus, that they might put him to death, and found none.
[56] For many bore false witness against him, and their evidences were not agreeing.
[57] And some rising up, bore false witness against him, saying:
[58] We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another not made with hands.
[59] And their witness did not agree.
[60] And the high priest rising up in the midst, asked Jesus, saying: Answerest thou nothing to the things that are laid to thy charge by these men?
[61] But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said to him: Art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed God?
 |
| The high priest rends his garments. J-J Tissot. |
[62] And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
[63] Then the high priest rending his garments, saith: What need we any further witnesses?
[64] You have heard the blasphemy. What think you? Who all condemned him to be guilty of death.
[65] And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the servants struck him with the palms of their hands.
[53] Et adduxerunt Jesum ad summum sacerdotem : et convenerunt omnes sacerdotes, et scribae, et seniores. [54] Petrus autem a longe secutus est eum usque intro in atrium summi sacerdotis : et sedebat cum ministris ad ignem, et calefaciebat se. [55] Summi vero sacerdotes et omne concilium quaerebant adversus Jesum testimonium, ut eum morti traderent, nec inveniebant. [56] Multi enim testimonium falsum dicebant adversus eum : et convenientia testimonia non erant. [57] Et quidam surgentes, falsum testimonium ferebant adversus eum, dicentes : [58] Quoniam nos audivimus eum dicentem : Ego dissolvam templum hoc manu factum, et per triduum aliud non manu factum aedificabo. [59] Et non erat conveniens testimonium illorum. [60] Et exsurgens summus sacerdos in medium, interrogavit Jesum, dicens : Non respondes quidquam ad ea quae tibi objiciuntur ab his? [61] Ille autem tacebat, et nihil respondit. Rursum summus sacerdos interrogabat eum, et dixit ei : Tu es Christus Filius Dei benedicti? [62] Jesus autem dixit illi : Ego sum : et videbitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei, et venientem cum nubibus caeli. [63] Summus autem sacerdos scindens vestimenta sua, ait : Quid adhuc desideramus testes? [64] Audistis blasphemiam : quid vobis videtur? Qui omnes condemnaverunt eum esse reum mortis. [65] Et coeperunt quidam conspuere eum, et velare faciem ejus, et colaphis eum caedere, et dicere ei : Prophetiza : et ministri alapis eum caedebant.
Notes
53. They brought Jesus to the high-priest. To Caiphas. Jesus was bound by the soldiers in Gethsemani and was then led into the city by the same road that He had left it.
According to a local tradition, the house of Caiphas was situated quite close to the Cœnaculum, therefore due south-west of Jerusalem, and about 400 feet north of it. The house of Annas adjoined that of Caiphas. Jesus was first taken to Annas the ex-high- priest (St John xviii. 13) ; he had great authority in Jerusalem, and appears to have chosen at least his two immediate successors. His son-in-law, his five sons, and his nephew held the office in turn after he retired from it. It has been suggested that both Annas and Caiphas employed the same palace as a common official residence. Jesus, as a teacher of false doctrine, was conducted to the high-priest, whose office it was to judge religious questions.
and all the priests .... scribes and the ancients. This was an informal meeting of the Sanhedrin. It was illegal for the council to meet during the night ; all is not to be taken literally.
assembled together. Some came from Gethsemani, others would be hastily summoned.
54. Peter followed afar off. He seems to have repented of having deserted Christ, but was still anxious about his own personal safety, and at the same time desirous to see the end (St Matt. xxvi. 58).
Therefore St Peter followed Him to the palace of Caiphas, But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the high-priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter (St John xviii. 16). The other disciple in question, is generally supposed to have been St John, thus two of our Lord’s apostles were eye-witnesses of what took place on this occasion in the court. This was a large open space in front of the palace. The servants would be waiting there, while the Sanhedrin questioned Jesus, as none but witnesses and the disciples of the Pharisees were allowed to be present when the Sanhedrin sat in judgment, and one witness was not allowed to hear the evidence of another.
with the servants , — i.e. the officials, not the slaves.
at the fire, etc. The nights at the paschal season were cold, and consequently the servants would have lighted a fire in the court. While St Peter was warming himself our Lord was being questioned by Annas ; St John alone relates that Jesus was taken first to Annas.
55. the chief priests and all the council sought for evidence. At least the greater part, if not strictly all. Twenty-three Sanhedrists constituted a quorum. The full number with the president and vice-president was seventy-one.
that they might put him to death. The verdict was foregone. The spiritual leaders and judges of Israel were trying, not to find the truth about our Lord, but to obtain a pretext for condemning Him to death.
56. their evidence were not agreeing : literally were not equal (i.e. insufficient to convict our Lord). By the Law of Moses they were bound to have the testimony of at least two witnesses. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die, that is to be slain. Let no man be put to death, when only one beareth witness against him (Deut. xvii. 6). The false witnesses who came forward brought different charges against Jesus. St Mark alone notes the disagreement in the evidence of these men.
58. W e heard him say I will destroy, etc. Compare the two texts —
St John ii. 19-21.
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up .... he spoke of the temple of his body. ,
St Mark xiv. 58.
“ I will ” destroy this temple “ made with hands, ” and within three days I will “ build ” another “not made with hands. ”
The words quoted shew the additions made by the false witnesses. They also used the word build , which Christ did not use. This charge brought against Christ was equivalent to —
(a) Blasphemy against the Temple, which was one of the charges brought against St Stephen (see Acts vi. 13).
(b) A claim to either divine or magical powers, since the Temple was not to be made with hands.
The witnesses were only able to bring this charge by —
(a) Misquoting Christ’s words.
(b) Misinterpreting them.
not made with hands. The words of Christ pronounced at the Pasch, after the first cleansing of the Temple, referred to the resurrection of His body.
60. the high-priest rising up, etc. Jesus had kept silence while the witnesses contradicted one another. The discrepancies in the statements proved them to be false, and the high-priest could not condemn Christ on the evidence of men who did not agree in their accusations ; doubtless he wished Jesus to incriminate Himself.
St Mark alone mentions that Caiphas rose up in the midst, literally into the midst, he stood forward. Evidently the high-priest was enraged at finding no matter of accusation. Wicked as these judges were, they wished to keep to the forms of justice, and dared not condemn Christ, without at least having a pretext for so doing. The real cause of His condemnation was their hatred and jealousy, which they dared not bring forward. Some writers hold that the high-priest should not have stood up, since judges usually remain seated ; others think that he rose because he was speaking in his official capacity as a priest, and the priests in the synagogue ministered standing.
61. he held his peace . There was no need for Him to speak when it was evident that the evidence was false. The prophecy of the Psalmist was fulfilled, I, as a deaf man, heard not ; and as a dumb man not opening his mouth (Ps. xxxvii. 14, 15).
Art thou the Christ, etc. St Matthew tells us the high-priest prefaced these words with a solemn adjuration, thus putting our Lord on His oath, I adjure thee, by the living God, When thus addressed, Jesus answered Caiphas, since the high-priest publicly commanded Him to do so by the reverence due to God. The judge was allowed to put the accused on oath, as a means of arriving at the truth concerning him.
the Son of the blessed God. This was a title of the Messiah, and Jesus so interpreted it. Caiphas so worded his question that Christ must either answer yes or no. Had He answered no the Council would have condemned Him as an impostor, if He replied in the affirmative they could accuse Him (as they did) of blasphemy.
62. Jesus said to him ; I am. Jesus gives a plain answer and asserts that He is the Christ. Thus this is the first time that we find our Lord owning publicly that He was the Messiah, though all His public life was a proof of His divine mission, since He performed the miracles predicted of the Messiah.
you shall see the Son of man , etc. Jesus contrasts His present condition of humiliation with the pomp and glory of His second advent.
of the power of God. In the majesty of God, and therefore as God. These words were partly fulfilled —
(1) When Christ rose from the dead.(2) When the Holy Ghost descended.(3) When Christianity finally triumphed over Judaism.
with the clouds of heaven. The usual expression when Christ’s second coming is described. Behold he cometh with the clouds , and every eye shall see him , and they also that pierced him, etc. (Apoc. i. 7). These words relate particularly to the day of judgment.
63. rending his garments. This was a sign of great grief and indignation. Here the high-priest rent His garments on the assumption that Jesus had blasphemed.
He was allowed to do this in cases of blasphemy— And Eliacim the son of Helcias, who was over the house, and Sobna the scribe .... came to Ezechias with their garments rent, and told him the words of Rabsaces (4 Kings xviii. 37). It was forbidden to rend them as a sign of mourning— And Moses said to Aaron .... rend not your garments, lest perhaps you die, etc. (Lev. x. 6).
He would stand to rend his garments, and begin to rend at the top. St Mark used the plural garments, but the original Greek refers to the inner garment, while St Matthew speaks of the outer one. He who rent his garments was bound to rend all except the tunic (or shirt) ; the rent was to be made longitudinally for about the length of a span, and might never be repaired. It was forbidden to rend the priestly vestments, which were only worn in the Temple.
What need we any farther witnesses ? Caiphas here acts as witness since he states the charge : he hath blasphemed (St Matt. xxvi. 65).
64. What think you ? The inquiry refers, not to the guilt of our Lord, but to the punishment, as we see from the context, when all present condemned him to be guilty of death. The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death ; this the Jews could not inflict, nor any other capital punishment. Hence, having declared the accused guilty of death, they needed to hand over their prisoner to the Romans. It was now about three o’clock a.m., and we may conclude, by studying the gospel narratives, that Jesus was given in charge of the soldiers of the guard, until it was time to conduct him to Pilate.
all condemned. Either all present, or the majority. No formal vote seems to have been taken. Christ was acclaimed guilty of death.
guilty of death. An obsolete way of expressing a judgment. We now find the accused guilty of some crime, and deserving a certain punishment.
65. some began to spit on him. In those barbarous times the guards could ill-treat their prisoners with impunity.
Spitting was a mark of the greatest contempt. And the Lord answered him: If her father had spitten upon her face, ought she not to have been ashamed, etc. (Num. xii. 14). Those who were excommunicated by the synagogue were exposed to be treated thus. Perhaps the members of the Sanhedrin thus expressed their hatred and rage as they passed our Lord. Jesus had foreseen this, and every other detail of His Passion. Seneca relates that when Aristides was sentenced to this indignity at Athens, the judges had considerable difficulty in finding one who would inflict it on the Just.
to cover his face : in order to veil His eyes, and thus ridicule Him as a prophet.
to buffet. To strike with the clenched fist.
to say unto him, etc. The brutal soldiers did this in derision of Christ’s prophetic words : You shall see , etc., and many other things, blaspheming , they said against him (St Luke xxii. 65). The inspired prophet had described exactly the awful scene when, speaking in the name of Christ, he says, I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them : I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me (Is. l. 6).
the servants struck him. These would be the officials of the Sanhedrin.
palms of their hands. St Matthew tells us they struck His sacred face. In this awful moment man cannot conceive what violence and humiliations Jesus endured at the hands of these inhuman wretches. He submitted to it willingly, in order to redeem us and to shew us how to bear suffering and insult. If He, the Lamb of God, suffered thus for us, we ought to be ready to endure pain and contempt for Him.
Trials of Our Lord as given by St Mark
I. The Ecclesiastical Trial before the high-priest and the Sanhedrin.
Sequence of Events —
A. The informal interrogation before the Sanhedrin during the night (xiv. 53).
(1) Jesus is accused by the false witnesses of blasphemy against the Temple.Jesus is accused by the high-priest of blasphemy against God.(2) He is judged worthy of death (xiv. 55-64).(3) The Jews deride and ill-treat our Lord (xiv. 65).
B. The formal interrogation before the Sanhedrin on the morning of Good Friday.
(1) The sentence pronounced the previous night is confirmed.(2) The Sanhedrin send Jesus bound to Pilate.
II. The Civil Trial before the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate —
(1) We learn from Pilate’s question, Art thou the King of the Jews? that Jesus was here accused of treason. St Luke gives the whole charge, And they began to accuse him, saying: We have found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar , and saying that he is Christ the King (St Luke xxiii. 2).
(2) Pilate endeavoured to release Jesus. It was customary at the feast to release a prisoner, at the choice of the Jews.
(3) The Jews prefer Barabbas. And Pilate being willing to satisfy the people, released to them Barrabas, and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified (xv. 15).
(4) The Roman soldiers deride and treat our Lord as a mock-king.
(5) Jesus is led to Calvary and crucified.
Additional Notes
These passages have perplexed commentators, since there is an apparent contradiction. The Synoptists all speak of Jesus being led to the high-priest. St Matthew even adds the name Caiphas, while St John clearly states that Jesus was first led to Annas, who sent Him bound to Caiphas. How are we to reconcile these discrepancies ? Some commentators are of opinion that our Lord was merely taken to Annas on His way to Caiphas, in order to gratify the ex-high-priest, by the sight of Jesus as a prisoner, but that Annas sent Him on at once to his son-in-law the high-priest (de facto). Those who hold this opinion, think that nothing worth recording occurred when Jesus was taken to Annas ; and that when St John says, “ The high-priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine” (xviii. 19), he is referring to Caiphas. Then comes the difficulty that in verse 24 we are told : “ And Annas sent him bound to Caiphas the high- priest.” To this objection it is replied that the aorist tense is often used in the sense of the pluperfect, and that “ sent ” is here equivalent to “had sent.” An example of this use of the aorist tense occurs in the passage, “ And he that betrayed him gave them a sign” (St Matt. xxvi. 48). If we consult the parallel passage we find the pluperfect used : “ And he that betrayed him had given them a sign ” (St Mark xiv. 44). St Cyril, à Lapide, Cardinal Toletus, and many others take this view. This opinion seems confirmed by the following facts : —
(1) The Synoptists all state that the denials of St Peter occurred in the house of the high-priest.
(2) It was the portress at the lodge of the high-priest’s house who admitted St Peter.
(3) St John himself says, ‘‘the high-priest questioned Jesus,” etc. ; and in ch. xviii. 22 he distinctly speaks of “Caiphas, who was the high -priest that year ” ; while the servant who gave Jesus a blow said, “ Answerest thou the high-priest so ? ”
Therefore it seems possible that the sequence may have been —
(а) Jesus was taken to Annas in passing, but either nothing worthy of record occurred, or no disciples were there to hear what happened.
(b) Meanwhile, Caiphas was occupied in assembling as many of the Sanhedrists as possible, and when they were assembled Jesus was led in before them. ...
(c) One denial of St Peter took place while Jesus was before Annas, and the other two, during the interrogation before the high-priest.
Note. — Since the denials of St Peter all occurred in the court of the high-priest, we may conclude either —
(1) That Annas passed the night in the house of Caiphas ; or
(2) That the houses of Annas and Caiphas were adjacent, so that there was one common court for the two houses. The local tradition points out the site of these houses as being thus situated.
Attitude of the Sanhedrin with regard to Christ. The attitude of the Sanhedrin as a council, had from the first been one of implacable hatred and vengeance. Nothing short of His death would satisfy the Sanhedrists. There were indeed a few honourable exceptions, such as Joseph of Arimathea, who “ had not consented to their counsel and doings” (St Luke xxiii. 51), and Nicodemus. There may have been also others, whose names have not passed down to posterity. Those who were friends of Jesus were, however, a very small minority, compared with the majority that sought to kill Him. We see proofs of their implacable hatred in their determination to procure evidence which would convict Christ. St Matthew tells us that “ the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death ” (xxvi. 59). Here “ false witnesses ” must be taken from the historian’s standpoint. The Sanhedrin did not openly seek “ false ” witnesses, but were eager to find men who would bring some charge against Christ, so as to give them a pretext for condemning Him. The verdict had already been settled in their own councils ; it remained to find some justification for the judicial murder. In St John’s gospel we can trace the course of their Satanic hatred of Christ : —
St John.
1. Nicodemus and any others who believed in Christ were threatened with excommunication, as we gather from St John :
“ For the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue,” . ix. 22.
See also vii. 46-53.
2. From the first Passover of His public life “Jesus did not trust himself unto them,” . ii. 24.
3. Jesus left Judea and went into Galilee on account of the jealousy of the Pharisees, . iv. 3.
4. The Pharisees persecuted Jesus because He healed the sick on the Sabbath day, . v. 16.
5. Before the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus “ would not walk in Judea because the Jews sought to kill him,” . . . vii. 1.
6. They excommunicated the man, to whom Christ had given sight, . ix. 34.
7. “ The Jews then took up stones to stone him,” . . x. 31.
8. “ The Pharisees had given a commandment, that if any man knew where he was, he should tell, that they might apprehend him,” . xi. 56.
9. They decide to kill “ Lazarus also,” .... xii. 10.
10. Caiphas cynically said to the council, “You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not,” . xi. 49, 50.
At the examinations on Good Friday, St Mark tells us “they sought evidence against Jesus/’ etc. (xiv. 55).
These examples prove the deadly hatred of the Sanhedrin for Christ, and we may notice that their total disregard of the laws of justice, and even of their own Rabbinical statutes, was maintained to the end. They contravened flagrantly their own rules concerning capital trials, as we see from the following irregularities in their course of action : —
1. The meeting of the Sanhedrin was held in the high-priest’s house, not in their council hall (the Gazith).
2. The witnesses against Christ came first, and none were called or allowed to speak for Him.
3. The sentence of condemnation was pronounced the same day as the trial.
4. The high-priest assumed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, instead of putting the question to the vote, beginning by the youngest member of the Sanhedrin.
5. The witnesses did not agree in their evidence.
6. They did not distinguish between a just claim and an unjust claim. Christ claimed to be the Messiah, and His claim was proved by His works.
Thus the whole proceedings were the outcome of man’s evil passions, which in the designs of God, were allowed to bring about the condemnation of the “ Lamb of God,” and thus man’s redemption was effected and the prophecies were
fulfilled.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
No comments:
Post a Comment