Mark 14:59

• The trial of Jesus took place before the full high council, called the Sanhedrin in Greek. The council had seventy members and was led by the high priest. The Gospels describe the trial as a formal legal process:

  • The council searched for witnesses (14:55).

  • They heard testimony from eyewitnesses (14:56–59).

  • They placed Jesus under oath (Matthew 26:63).

  • They allowed Jesus to defend himself (Mark 14:60).

  • The "high priest tore his clothes" (14:63).

  • The Sanhedrin gave the final verdict (14:64).

  This does not mean it was a fair trial. The decision to put Jesus to death had already been made. Evidence was not sought to determine the truth, but to obtain a guilty verdict and death sentence.

• False witnesses giving false testimony misrepresented what Jesus said about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple (see 15:29; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Since the false witnesses contradicted each other, their testimony was not reliable (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15).

The account of the trial of Jesus begins immediately after his arrest. Some scholars have questioned whether the Gospel accounts are historically reliable because they differ in some details from the rules found in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin. However, several points should be considered.

1. The Mishnah was written around AD 200, while the Gospel of Mark was written in the late AD 60s, more than 130 years earlier.

2. The rules in Mishnah Sanhedrin describe what later rabbis believed should happen in such trials. They do not necessarily describe what actually happened.

3. It is uncertain whether the Sadducees who led the Sanhedrin would have followed the Pharisaic rules found in the Mishnah Sanhedrin (see Acts 23:6–10).

4. Some rules in the Mishnah Sanhedrin differ from what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote.

5. Laws were not always followed in practice. Jesus was being tried by a court that had already decided the outcome and only needed a charge to justify the sentence (Mark 14:55).

6. There is no strong reason to consider the Sanhedrin Mishnah more reliable than the Gospel accounts if the two differ.

We have here Christ's arraignment, trial, conviction, and condemnation, in the ecclesiastical court, before the great sanhedrim, of which the high priest was president, or judge of the court; the same Caiaphas that had lately adjudged it expedient he should be put to death, guilty or not guilty (Joh 11:50), and who therefore might justly be excepted against as partial.
I. Christ is hurried away to his house, his palace it is called, such state did he live in. And there, though, in the dead of the night, all the chief priests, and elders, and scribes, that were in the secret, were assembled, ready to receive the prey; so sure were they of it.
II. Peter followed at a distance, such a degree of cowardice was his late courage dwindled into, Mar 14:54. But when he came to the high priest's palace, he sneakingly went, and sat with the servants, that he might not be suspected to belong to Christ. The high priest's fire side was no proper place, nor his servants proper company, for Peter, but it was his entrance into a temptation.
III. Great diligence was used to procure, for love or money, false witnesses against Christ. They had seized him as a malefactor, and now they had him they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge, but they sought for witnesses against him; pumped some with ensnaring questions, offered bribes to others, if they would accuse him, and endeavored to frighten others, if they would not, Mar 14:55, Mar 14:56. The chief priests and elders were by the law entrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses (Deu 19:16, Deu 19:17); yet those were now ringleaders in a crime that tends to overthrow of all justice. It is time to cry, Help, Lord, when the physicians of a land are its troublers, and those that should be the conservators of peace and equity, are the corrupters of both.
IV. He was at length charged with words spoken some years ago, which, as they were represented, seemed to threaten the temple, which they had made no better than an idol of (Mar 14:57, Mar 14:58); but the witnesses to this matter did not agree (Mar 14:59), for one swore that he said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days (so it is in Matthew); the other swore that he said, I will destroy this temple, that is made with hands, and within three days, I will build not it, but another made without hands; now these two differ much from each other; oude isē ēn hē marturia - their testimony was not sufficient, nor equal to the charge of a capital crime; so Dr. Hammond: they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded, no not by the utmost stretch of their law.
V. He was urged to be his own accuser (Mar 14:60); The high priest stood up in a heat, and said, Answerest thou nothing? This he said under pretence of justice and fair dealing, but really with a design to ensnare him, that they might accuse him, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54; Luk 20:20. We may well imagine with what an air of haughtiness and disdain this proud high priest brought our Lord Jesus to this question; "Come you, the prisoner at the bar, you hear what is sworn against you; what have you now to say for yourself?" Pleased to think that he seemed silent, who had so often silenced those that picked quarrels with him. Still Christ answered nothing, that he might set us an example, 1. Of patience under calumnies and false accusations; when we are reviled, let us not revile again, Pe1 2:23. And, 2. Of prudence, when a man shall be made an offender for a word (Isa 29:21), and our defence made our offence; it is an evil time indeed when the prudent shall keep silence (lest they make bad worse), and commit their cause to him that judgeth righteously. But,
VI. When he was asked whether he was the Christ, he confessed, and denied not, that he was, Mar 14:61, Mar 14:62. He asked, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? that is the Son of God? for, as Dr. Hammond observes, the Jews, when they named God, generally added, blessed for ever; and thence the Blessed is the title of God, a peculiar title, and applied to Christ, Rom 9:5. And for the proof of his being the Son of God, he binds them over to his second coming; "Ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power; that Son of man that now appears so mean and despicable, whom ye see and trample upon (Isa 53:2, Isa 53:3), you shall shortly see and tremble before." Now, one would think that such a word as this which our Lord Jesus seems to have spoken with a grandeur and majesty not agreeable to his present appearance (for through the thickest cloud of his humiliation some rays of glory were still darted forth), should have startled the court, and at least, in the opinion of some of them, should have amounted to a demurrer, or arrest of judgment, and that they should have stayed process till they had considered further of it; when Paul at the bar reasoned of the judgment to come, the judge trembled, and adjourned the trial, Act 24:25. But these chief priests were so miserably blinded with malice and rage, that, like the horse rushing into the battle, they mocked at fear, and were not affrighted, neither believed they that it was the sound of the trumpet, Job 39:22, Job 39:24. And see Job 15:25, Job 15:26.
VII. The high priest, upon this confession of his, convicted him as a blasphemer (Mar 14:63); He rent his clothes - chitōnas autou. Some think the word signifies his pontifical vestments, which, for the greater state, he had put on, though in the night, upon this occasion. As before, in his enmity to Christ, he said he knew not what (Joh 11:51, Joh 11:52), so now he did he knew not what. If Saul's rending Samuel's mantle was made to signify the rending of the kingdom from him (Sa1 15:27, Sa1 15:28), much more did Caiaphas's rending his own clothes signify the rending of the priesthood from him, as the rending of the veil, at Christ's death, signified the throwing of all open. Christ's clothes, even when he was crucified, were kept entire, and not rent: for when the Levitical priesthood was rent in pieces and done away, This Man, because he continues ever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
VIII. They agreed that he was a blasphemer, and, as such, was guilty of a capital crime, Mar 14:64. The question seemed to be put fairly, What think ye? But it was really prejudged, for the high priest had said, Ye have heard the blasphemy; he gave judgment first, who, as president of the court, ought to have voted last. So they all condemned him to be guilty of death; what friends he had in the great sanhedrim, did not appear, it is probable that they had not notice.
IX. They set themselves to abuse him, and, as the Philistines with Samson, to make sport with him, Mar 14:65. It should seem that some of the priests themselves that had condemned him, so far forgot the dignity, as well as duty, of their place, and the gravity which became them, that they helped their servants in playing the fool with a condemned prisoner. This they made their diversion, while they waited for the morning, to complete their villany. That night of observations (as the passover-night was called) they made a merry night of. If they did not think it below them to abuse Christ, shall we think any thing below us, by which we may do him honour?

Mark 14:53-59

Matthew 26:57-61

Mark 14:53-59

Luke 22:54

57. But they who had apprehended Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders were assembled. 58. And Peter followed him at a distance, as far as to the court of the high priest, and having gone in, he sat with the servants to see the end. 59. And the chief priests and elders, and the whole council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death, 60. And found none; even though many false witnesses came, they found none: but at length came two false witnesses, 61. Who said, This man said, I can destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days.

53. And they led Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, and elders, and scribes, assembled with him. 54. And Peter followed him at a distance, as far as to the palace of the high priest; and he sat along with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire. 55. And the chief priests, and the whole council, sought evidence against Jesus, to put him to death, and found none. 56. For many bore false witness against him, but their declarations did not agree. 57. Then some arose, and bore false witness against him, saying, 58. We have heard him say, I will destroy this temple, which was made with hands, and within three days I will build another, made without hands. 59. But even here their testimony did not agree.

54. And, having seized him, they led and brought him to the house of the high priest; and Peter followed at a distance.

Luke follows a different order from Matthew and Mark in the narrative; but when we come to the proper place, we will endeavor to reconcile the points in which they differ. It will be proper, in the meantime, to glance briefly at those things which claim our attention in the words of Matthew and Mark. First, in order to remove the offense of the cross, we ought to consider the advantage which we have derived from Christ's emptying of himself, (Philippians 2:7;) for thus will the inestimable goodness of God, and the efficacy of his grace, be found to remove by its brightness every thing in it that was disagreeable or shameful. According to the flesh, it was disgraceful that the Son of God should be seized, bound, and made a prisoner; but when we reflect that by his chains we are loosed from the tyranny of the devil, and from the condemnation in which we were involved before God, not only is the stumbling-block, on which our faith might have struck, removed out of the way, but in place of it there comes an admiration of the boundless grace of God, who set so high a value on our deliverance, as to give up his only-begotten Son to be bound by wicked men. This will also be a pledge of the astonishing love of Christ towards us, that he spared not himself, but willingly submitted to wear fetters on his flesh, that our souls might be freed from fetters of a far worse description.

Matthew 26:57. But they who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas. Though the Jews had been deprived of what is called, the higher jurisdiction, there still lingered among them some vestiges of that judicial authority which the Law confers on the high priest, (Deuteronomy 1:8;) so that, while they had lost the absolute authority, [223] they retained the power of administering moderate correction. This is the reason why Christ is brought before the high priest to be interrogated; not that a final sentence may be pronounced on him by theft tribunal, but that the priests may afterwards present him before the governor, under the aggravating influence of their decision. [224] Caiaphas the high priest was also named Joseph, and this man--as we are told by the historian Josephus--was appointed to be high priest by Valerius Gratus, governor of Judea, when Simon, the son of Camithus, was deposed from that office. [225] The Evangelists give his surname only, [226] perhaps because he was more generally named, and better known, by it.

Matthew says that the priests assembled in the house of Caiaphas; and that they were already assembled at midnight, before Christ was brought, but because the place of meeting had been appointed, that, as soon as the information reached them, they might meet hastily at an early hour in the morning; though we have lately seen that some who belonged to the order of the priesthood went out by night, along with the soldiers, to seize Christ. But we have frequently seen, in other passages, that the Evangelists were not very exact in adhering to the order of time. In this passage, certainly, they had no other object in view than to show that the Son of God was oppressed by a wicked conspiracy of the whole council. And here a frightful and hideous spectacle is placed before our eyes; for nowhere else than at Jerusalem was there at that time either a temple of God, or lawful worship, or the face of a Church. The high priest was a figure of the only Mediator between God and men; those who sat along with him in the council represented the whole Church of God; and yet all of them unite in conspiring to extinguish the only hope Of salvation. But as it had been declared by prediction of David, that

the stone which the builders rejected would nevertheless become the head-stone of the corner, (Psalm 118:22;)

and as Isaiah had foretold that

the God of armies would be to the whole people of Israel a stone of stumbling, on which they would dash themselves,
(Isaiah 8:14)

the Lord wisely made provision that such wickedness of men should not perplex believing souls.

59. Sought false witness. By these words the Evangelists remark, that nothing was farther from the design of the priests than to inquire into the cause, so that, when the matter was thoroughly understood, they might decide what was proper. For they had previously resolved to put Christ to death, and now they only seek a pretense for oppressing him. Now it is impossible that equity can have any place where an examination of the cause is not the first step. In seeking false witnesses, their treacherous cruelty is manifested; and when, after being disappointed of their expectation, they still do not desist, this affords a still more striking display of their blinded obstinacy. Thus, amidst the darkness of their rage, the innocence of the Son of God shone so brightly, that the devils themselves might know that he died innocent.

It ought to be observed, also, that the appellation of false witnesses is applied not to those who contrive a lie which had no foundation, but to those who calumniously pervert what was justly said, and turn it into a crime; an instance of which is here expressly related as to the destruction and rebuilding of the temple. Christ had indeed said, that when

the temple of his body was destroyed,
he would raise it up within three days, (John 2:19.)

The false witnesses do not now resort to some new contrivance, but they put a wrong interpretation on his words, as if he boasted that he would practice some juggling in building the temple. Now as the calumny was trivial and worthless, we may readily infer from it how greatly the priests and scribes were blinded by their fury, since, without any pretext, they demand that Christ shall be put to death.

Footnotes:

[223] "La puissance de condamner ? mort;" -- "the power of condemning to death."

[224] "Estant desja charg? par leur jugement, et que cela soit un prejudice contre luy;" -- "being already accused by their decision, and that this may excite a prejudice against him."

[225] Ant. 18:2. 2. -- Repeated allusions have been made, in earlier portions of the Commentary, to this remarkable passage in the writings of the great Jewish historian. The reader will find it quoted at length. -- Harmony [11]vol. 1, p. 177, n. 1--- Ed.

[226] That is, instead of calling him Joseph Caiaphas, they call him simply Caiaphas.

Peter followed - On Peter's denial, see Mat 26:57, etc.
At the fire - Προς το φως, literally, at the light, i.e. a fire that cast considerable light, in consequence of which, the maid servant was the better able to distinguish him: see Mar 14:67.

But, neither so did their witness agree together. Their witness did agree together, for they both witnessed the same thing; but not so as to found upon it the charge of a capital crime against him; their witness was not so, "equal", was not answerable to their desires, nor sufficient to convict him of a capital crime, for which they could condemn him to death, as before observed on Mark 14:56.

See Poole on ""