Mark 14:53

Jesus Is Put On Trial Before The Jewish Leaders In The High Priest's House During Which Time Peter Denies Jesus Before Bystanders In The Courtyard (14:53-15:1).

The ‘trials' of Jesus present a complicated problem because it is clear that, prior to His official trial by the Sanhedrin at break of day (Mark 15:1), Jesus was subjected to legal examination with the aim of building up a case against Him that would stand up before the whole Sanhedrin, and finally before Pilate.

Thus He appears first to have been brought to Annas, the ‘retired' (by the Romans) High Priest, who was still called and thought of as High Priest by the Jews (John 18:13; John 18:19), for private questioning. (Former High Priests retained their title until death). His apartments would probably be in the same palace as those of his son-in-law Caiaphas and at this stage time was possibly needed to get some of the Sanhedrin together. Then, because of the failure to achieve their purpose in that private meeting, He was brought before a larger group ‘in the house of Caiaphas', the current High Priest (18-36 AD), probably consisting of a good number of the Sanhedrin hastily brought together, a considerable number of whom, but not necessarily all, were antagonistic to Him (Mark 14:53; Matthew 26:57). Then finally He was brought before the ‘full' Sanhedrin (Mark 15:1; Matthew 27:1; Luke 22:66). The last would be the only official trial. But by then the issue had really been decided.

The presumed absence of Nicodemus (John 3:1), Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43) and others (possibly men such as Gamaliel - Acts 5:34) at the final trial must even then raise the question as to whether even this gathering was all so arranged that they could not be ‘found' until it was too late. For these at least would surely have raised a protest? Or did they sit there in silence, ensuring that the niceties were observed, but acknowledging that they could do little in the circumstances? If so Joseph and Nicodemus finally regretted it and later made some effort to make amends (John 19:38).

The aim of the chief priests appears to have been twofold. Firstly to build up a case so as eventually to get the Sanhedrin to find Him guilty of blasphemy and thus deserving of death (so covering themselves with the Jewish people). And then to use their influence to get Pilate to condemn Him for being a revolutionary (thus preventing themselves having to take the blame for His execution).

Mark concentrates on the appearance at the house of Caiaphas before Caiaphas, which was a judicial examination, although not the official meeting of the Sanhedrin which had to take place in daylight. While we know from the Mishnah the theoretical rules for a trial before the Sanhedrin according to the views of the Pharisees, these may not all have applied in Jesus' time, especially as at this stage the Sadducees controlled the function. It is, however, clear from what follows that witnesses did have to be tested against each other and their witness had to agree, and that a trial before the Sanhedrin could not take place at night (which is not to say that a preliminary hearing could not).

It is probable that in the case of major crimes the Sanhedrin only had the right to act in religious cases where the charges were of blasphemy, and even then could only exercise the death penalty for blasphemy of a severe kind. Thus if a Gentile went beyond the court of the Gentiles in the Temple he could immediately be put to death, and when Stephen was charged with blasphemy he could be stoned (Acts 7:58). The same happened to James the Lord's brother many years later, but in that case the perpetrators were called to account.

A partial exception was where they were given authority by the governor to act otherwise, an authority which in fact he was willing to grant in this case (John 18:31), but in such circumstances, under that authority, they did not have the right to exact the death penalty (John 18:31). And that was not what they wanted.

It is quite probable that the High Priest went beyond his powers in ‘adjuring' the prisoner to speak the truth, as that was misusing divine authority in order to make a man incriminate himself. ‘Adjuring' was intended to be for witnesses. But as what was achieved was not the final charge it was presumably considered not too important a matter and condoned, for they after all they did not in the end want to stone Jesus for blasphemy. Indeed such an attempt might have resulted in the crowds taking action against them. What they wanted was for the Roman authority to take the blame in the eyes of the people. The charge of blasphemy was to satisfy themselves and any doubters that He deserved to die.

In the narrative that follows there is a vivid contrast between Jesus facing questioning three times in the courtroom, and Peter facing questioning three times in the courtyard. The One, the captive, scorns the questioners and in the end triumphantly declares His Messiahship and coming authority, bringing a dramatic gesture from the High Priest, the other, the free man, sinks from one depth of denial to another until in the end he denies Jesus in a dramatic gesture with a curse. The contrast between the Saviour and the saved is clear.

Analysis.

a And they led Jesus away to the High Priest, and there come together with him all the Chief Priests, and the Elders and the Scribes (Mark 14:53).

b And Peter had followed Him afar off, even within into the courtyard of the High Priest, and he was sitting with officials and warming himself before the fire (Mark 14:54).

c Now the Chief Priests and the whole Council sought witness against Jesus to bring about His death, and did not find it. For many bore false witness against Him,  and their witness did not agree together  (Mark 14:55).

d And there stood up certain and bore 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  (Mark 14:58).

e And the High Priest stood up among them and asked Jesus saying, “Do you answer nothing? What is it that these witness against you?” But He held his peace and answered nothing (Mark 14:60).

f Again the High Priest asks Him and says to Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61).

g And the High Priest tore his clothes and says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” And they all condemned him to be worthy of death' (Mark 14:63).

h And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to buffet Him, and to say to Him, “Prophesy.” And the officers received Him with blows of their hands (Mark 14:65).

c And as Peter was beneath in the court there comes one of the maids of the High Priest, and seeing Peter warming himself she looked on him and says, “You also were with the Nazarene, with Jesus” But he denied saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying”. And he went out into the porch and the cock crew (Mark 14:66).

d And the maid saw him and began again to say to those who stood by, “This is one of them” (Mark 14:69 a).

e But he again denied it (Mark 14:69 b).

f And after a little while those who stood by again said to Peter, “Truly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean” (Mark 14:70).

g But he began to curse and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak” (Mark 14:71).

h And immediately the second time the cock crew (Mark 14:72 a).

b And Peter called to mind the word, how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times.” And when he thought on it he wept (Mark 14:72 b).

a And immediately in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole council, held a consultation and bound Jesus and carried him away and delivered him up to Pilate (Mark 15:1).

Note that in ‘a' He is led away to the High Priest, and the Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders gather, and in the parallel the Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders deliver Him to Pilate. In ‘b' the presence of Peter is introduced, thus incorporating him into the narrative, and follows Jesus afar off into the court of the High Priest's house, and is found sitting before a fire among Jesus' enemies, and in the parallel he calls to mind that Jesus had said that he would deny Him three times, and he goes out and weeps bitterly. In ‘c' many bear false witness against Jesus but fail to agree, while in the parallel a maid servant bears witness against Peter, and he denies it. In ‘d' the charge becomes more specific, but again the witnesses fail to agree, while in the parallel the charge against Peter becomes more specific, ‘This is one of them.' In ‘e' Jesus answers nothing, and in the parallel Peter again denies the charge (These might be seen as incorporated with ‘d'). In ‘f' the High Priest questions Jesus' status and learns Who Jesus is, and in the parallel it is suggested to Peter that he is one of them because He is a Galilean. In ‘g' the High Priest reacts violently to the situation, and in the parallel Peter does the same. In ‘h' the result is that Jesus is defamed, and in the parallel the cock basically unawares does the same to Peter in the light of Jesus' warning (certainly in Peter's mind).

‘And they led Jesus away to the high priest, and there come together with him all the chief priests, and the elders and the scribes.'

This was the pre-trial judicial examination before Caiaphas. ‘All' is not to be taken literally. The point is that each group in the Sanhedrin was represented by those attending, the Chief Priests representing the Sadducees, the elders representing lay people, and the scribes representing the Pharisees. They were ‘all' there. Whatever conclusions were then reached would be brought for ratification before the full Sanhedrin in the morning (Mark 15:1).

We must beware of describing the proceedings as illegal. There were sufficient distinguished people present here to ensure that the legal requirements were on the whole maintained. Stretched they may have been, but they were not broken. And it was not a trial. That would not have suited their purpose, for had the Sanhedrin intended to pass and carry out the death penalty they would by their laws have had to wait twenty four hours before doing the latter. This was to be circumvented by passing the case to Pilate who was under no such restriction.