Mark 14:53-72

After Jesus’ arrest, “they led Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests and elders and experts in the law came together”.

Mark’s account merges the different movements and attempts of the high priest, all the chief priests, elders, and experts in the law to convict Jesus of a capital crime. The entire trial and suffering of Jesus can be divided in two major trials, first before the Jewish authorities (the Sanhedrin) and then before Pilate, the mighty power of Rome.

The trial by the Sanhedrin can be divided further into the appearance before Annas, next before Caiaphas, and finally before the entire Sanhedrin. This was necessary because the Sanhedrin did not have the power to exercise capital punishment by crucifixion, if Pilate had allowed the execution for Blasphemy, the punishment would have been stoning. As we will see the Jewish leaders broke their own laws in their trial of Jesus. My reference for these broken laws and rules is a paper by Dr. Robert L Dean, Jr., Dean Bible Ministries based on Yeshua: the life of the Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective, Dr Arnold Fruchetenbaum.

About the arrest of Jesus that we already studied in the previous chapters, here are rules:

• There was to be no arrest by religious authorities that was effected by a bribe.
• No steps of criminal proceedings were to occur after sunset.
• Judges or members of the Sanhedrin were not allowed to participate in an arrest.
• There were to be no trials before the morning sacrifice.
• There were to be no secret trials, only public.

The Apostle John reveals the motive of the Sanhedrin in John 11:47-48, So, the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous signs. If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.”

John’s record also includes a statement by the High Priest Caiaphas, “You know nothing at all!  You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” In one sense, Caiaphas was expressing a common-sense statement of political expediency. Caiaphas was talking about protecting their political future and the nation of Israel, but his words were true in a way that he could not imagine. The Apostle John includes a parenthetical truth, (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, and not for the Jewish nation only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered.) John 11:51-52 Caiaphas could not have imagined that Jesus’ death would not save the political Nation of Israel, but the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s salvation plan of the entire world.

Then they led Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests and elders and experts in the law came together.  And Peter had followed him from a distance, up to the high priest’s courtyard. He was sitting with the guards and warming himself by the fire.

John’s gospel says that Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. This is John’ eyewitness account that reveals that the other disciple, John himself, talked to the slave girl watching the gate and brought Peter inside. John adds more details writing, (Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire they had made, warming themselves because it was cold. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.)

Only the Gospel of John records Jesus’ preliminary hearing before Annas, referred to as the high priest.  This was the first episode of the Jewish trial of Jesus.             According to John, Caiaphas was the son-in-law of the high priest Annas, who is widely identified with Ananus the son of Seth, mentioned by Josephus. When Annas was young, age 36, he was removed from the office of High Priest by Rome. Yet while having been officially removed from office, he remained as one of the nation’s most influential political and social individuals, aided greatly by the fact that his five sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas all served at some time as High Priests. He remained “the real” High Priest, the power behind the throne.

Jesus’ trial before the Jewish religious authorities included a preliminary hearing by Annas (John 18:12-14, 19-24), an arraignment before Caiaphas, the high priest, and the Sanhedrin at night (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65), and a final verdict by the Sanhedrin just after dawn (cf. Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1a; Luke 22:66-71). NET notes

While this was happening, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus replied, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret.  Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.”  When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, “Is that the way you answer the high priest?”  Jesus replied, “If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?”  Then Annas sent him, still tied up, to Caiaphas the high priest. John 18:19-24

This questioning of Jesus was late at night in the home of Annas, in the hopes that Jesus would reveal damning testimony about himself and his disciples. Since they could not get the evidence, they were seeking Annas, sent Jesus to the current High Priest Caiaphas. The 71-member Sanhedrin, including the presiding high priest, was hastily assembled in an upstairs room for a plenary night session. This was an “informal” trial that required a “formal” ratification after dawn to satisfy strict Jewish legal procedure allowing trials only in the daytime. A quorum consisted of 23 members but on this occasion the majority were probably there even though it was around 3 A.M. on Nisan 15 (Friday), a feast day.

The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find anything. Many gave false testimony against him, but their testimony did not agree.  Some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.’” Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree. Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is this that they are testifying against you?”  But he was silent and did not answer.

This was more violations of their laws; they were trying to get Jesus to condemn himself.

• Sanhedrin trials could only be conducted in the Hall of Judgment of the Temple compound.
• During the trial, the defense had the first word before the prosecutors could present the accusations.
• All could argue in favor of acquittal, but all could not argue in favor of conviction.
• There were to be two or three witnesses, and their testimonies had to agree in every detail.
• There was to be no allowance for the accused to testify against himself.

But Jesus remained silent, He did not answer the High Priest. They were violating the Law to get this conviction; He did not participate in their violations.

Again, the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses?  You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?” They all condemned him as deserving death.  Then some began to spit on him, and to blindfold him, and to strike him with their fists, saying, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him and beat him.

• The high priest was forbidden to rend his garments.
• The accusation of blasphemy was only valid if the name of God itself was pronounced.
• A person could not be condemned solely on the basis of his own words.
• The verdict could not be announced at night.
• In the case of capital punishment, the trial and verdict could not occur at the same time, but had to be separated by at least 24 hours.
• Voting for the death penalty had to be done by individual count, beginning with the youngest, so that the young would not be influenced by the elders.
• A unanimous decision for guilt showed innocence, since it is impossible for all to agree without plotting.

Because the trial had to be decided based on the facts presented by two or three witnesses, and not on the basis of emotions, the high priest could not tear his clothing during the trial as this showed his partiality. The Law and the trial was suppose to keep the judges neutral, if they presented the charges it meant they has already taken sides. Also, Jesus did not use God’s name Yahweh, therefore it was not blasphemy. Jesus applied the words of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 to himself. The law emphasized the “testimony of two outside witnesses that agreed, it could not include the words of the accused by itself.

This hasty night meeting was deemed necessary because:  In Jewish criminal law it was customary to hold a trial immediately after arrest. Roman legal trials were usually held shortly after sunrise so the Sanhedrin needed a binding verdict by daybreak in order to get the case to Pilate early.  With Jesus finally in custody they did not want to delay proceedings, thereby arousing opposition to His arrest. Actually, they had already determined to kill Him; their only problem was getting evidence that would justify it. Perhaps also they wished to have the Romans crucify Jesus to avoid the people’s blaming the Sanhedrin for His death. BKC

While all these terrible things were taking place inside the palace of the high priest, Peter was still in the courtyard warming himself by the fire with the guards.

Now while Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the high priest’s slave girls came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked directly at him and said, “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it: “I don’t even understand what you’re talking about!” Then he went out to the gateway, and a rooster crowed. When the slave girl saw him, she began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” But he denied it again. A short time later the bystanders again said to Peter, “You must be one of them, because you are also a Galilean.” Then he began to curse, and he swore with an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about!”

Three times Peter is asked if he is one of Jesus’ disciples and three times, he denied knowing Jesus. Luke adds details and the drama of Peter’s denial, But Peter said, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed.  Then the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.”  And he went outside and wept bitterly.