Before an Informal Court

S. Mark xiv. 53–65

We left our Lord as He was being taken from a preliminary examination in the palace of Annas to Caiaphas the legal High Priest. Now we shall find that He appears before Caiaphas twice, the first time to be tried by members of the Sanhedrim, sitting informally; the second time by the same body legally summoned to ratify the previous decision, Caiaphas being president on both occasions.

We speak of the Council before which Jesus was first brought as an informal one. It has, however, been conjectured that it was the Lesser Sanhedrim, which consisted of twenty-three members, and sometimes sat as it were in committee to recommend to the larger Assembly. As two of the Evangelists, however, speak of it in wider terms, we may fairly conclude that it was at least intended not to represent an inferior court, but the whole Sanhedrim.

As soon as he was informed of the arrest, and while the examination before Annas was proceeding, Caiaphas would probably summon such Sanhedrists as he knew to be within easy reach. There would be, of course, the chief priests who had their quarters in his own residence, and others — no inconsiderable number, we may be sure — who were sufficiently excited about the arrangements and compact with Judas, to hold themselves in readiness for any emergency.

Caiaphas was especially anxious to get the trial through as quickly as possible; but seeing that under no circumstances might the Sanhedrim sit to try a capital cause before daybreak, he thought the best thing that he could do would be, by the production of evidence and in other ways, to advance the proceedings so far, that, when the formal assembly met, there would be little for them to do but ratify the verdict at which most of the members had previously arrived.

Now, the very first thing that we read is that all the Council exerted themselves to procure false witnesses against Him; and they found plenty ready enough to take their bribe and invent an accusation, for though the narrative says that they “found none,” it clearly means, none who answered their purpose. Their evidence was nothing but a tissue of obvious falsehoods and contradictions. At last, just when they were despairing of success, two came forward with apparently a consistent story; they said they had heard Him speak disparagingly of the Temple. But again there was a failure. Their statements were inconsistent. One said His words were, “I am able to destroy this Temple,” another said they were, “I will destroy” it. It is more than a verbal discrepancy; probably neither of them spoke the truth. What He really did say is told us by S. John: “Destroy this Temple;” “destroy ye this Temple, as I know very well that ye will, and then in three days I will raise it up.”

Jesus was silent through all this Babel of accusation. He knew that the whole evidence was false from beginning to end, and it was the judges’ business, not His, to expose its utter worthlessness. Till some charge should be adduced more substantial than any that had been spoken to as yet, no defence was needed.

Caiaphas might have interpreted this silence as acquiescence, and closed the proceedings, but this would have opened a door for delay when the Sanhedrim proper should meet. Moreover, he chafed at our Lord’s calmness and dignity, and could ill brook to have his authority thus openly set at defiance. Still more, perhaps he felt that the charge was a most unsatisfactory one, even if properly supported, to lay before the Roman Governor, who had shown by his conduct that he cared little enough for the Temple. At any cost a better case must be made out; so, springing up from his seat and confronting the Prisoner, he commanded Him to break silence. “Answerest Thou nothing? What is it which these witness against Thee?” but it was all in vain. At last he made a final appeal. “I adjure Thee by the Living God;” “I put you on your oath before Him, Whose curse falls on those who swear falsely;” “tell me whether Thou be the Christ?” and then he followed it up by a question of even greater moment still, “Art Thou the Son of the Blessed?” The crisis had come. The title must be claimed before He died, so with a dignity and composure that must have filled them with awe, at least for the moment, He answered, “I am;” “I am the Messiah. I am the Son of God.”

In pretended horror at the confession the enraged Caiaphas rent his priestly cloak, crying ‘’Blasphemy.” “Every one must be agreed;” and amidst an unanimous shout of “guilty,” the informal Council broke up in confusion, and Jesus was left at the mercy of the attendants and bailiffs of the Court, while the judges hurried off and prepared for their reassembling, to pass sentence in accordance with the legal formalities.

Now, we can hardly close the consideration of this, the second stage in the trial, better than by noting carefully for what He was condemned. On the oath of “The Faithful and True Witness,” in the Name of God, and in the face of death, knowing in what sense the High Priest had used the title “Son of God,” He hastened to accept it. He broke silence which no expostulation, no threat whatever could provoke Him to break, because, as He said, He “came to bear witness to the truth,” and now, for the first time in the trial, the truth is at stake. And so, without a moment’s hesitation, in no lower sense, but in all its fulness, in the very language in which the challenge was given, He accepts it. “Thou hast said.” “I am.”

What further evidence do we need of His Divinity? Is it worthy of no weight with those who find difficulty in recognising it, that He claimed it Himself, He Whose truthfulness they would never dream of doubting? We can conceive of nothing more convincing than the fact, that in the supreme moment of His earthly life, surrounded by all the solemnity which an adjuration of the Most High could impart to the scene, He claimed that Sonship which, in the language of the Jews, implied nothing less than equality with God. It was not because He confessed that He was the Christ that they charged Him with blasphemy, but for the word that He spake — “I am,” “I am the Son of the Blessed.”

Take we heed, then, lest we too accuse Him of blasphemy; lest by withholding that which He claims we be found consenting to their verdict; for unless He deceived Caiaphas — and God forbid the thought! — it is indeed true as S. Paul said, “That in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

Note: The Jewish Law required the concordant testimony of at least two witnesses before condemning a man to be guilty of death. Cf. Deut. xvii. 6.

Note: Pilate appropriated the sacred treasure, Korban, which was set apart for the service of the Temple, to the construction of certain aqueducts. It led to disturbance and bloodshed.

Note: In S. Mark it is “the under-garments” xvrCbva.%, in S. Matthew “the outer,” i/xdria. In the Talmud directions are given as to the length and direction of the rent. It was to be a palm’s breadth, and from the neck downwards. Cf. Buxtorf, Talm. Lex. p. 2148. If we follow S. Mark we must suppose he had on his unofficial dress at the time.

Note: It is clear from this, compared with S. Luke xxiii. 51, that it was not the formal court, but a gathering of fanatical opponents of Christ. There was at least one at the legal court who voted differently. Z