صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

LXII

BEFORE THE HIGH PRIESTS AND THE

SANHEDRIN

Mark 14:53. "And they led Jesus away to the high priest." (Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:63-71; John 18: 12-27.)

T

HE four evangelists give very brief sketches of our Lord's trial and condemnation by the Jewish rulers; and, in order to harmonize these accounts, we need to bear in mind that the term high priest was applied, not only to the actual incumbent of the office, but to any one who had been high priest and was still living. Annas, son of Seth, was appointed high priest by the legate Quirinius, A. D. 6, and was deposed by Valerius Gratus A. D. 15. It is said that each of the five sons of Annas also held the office of high priest, and Caiaphas, the incumbent of the office when our Lord was condemned, was Annas' son-in-law. The family of Annas were Sadducean aristocrats, having immense wealth derived, in part at least, from the "booths of the sons of Annas," or the traffic in the temple, which monopolized the sale of all kinds of materials for sacrifice. They were responsible for making God's house "a den of robbers." They made their religious professions a means of acquiring worldly wealth, and were as cold, hard and compassionless as the Pharisees, without having the religious convictions of the Pharisees. They were worldly-wise, politic, unscrupulous, heartless rich men. With them the

difference between right and wrong was merely the difference between the expedient and the inexpedient. The question whether any one should be condemned to death, was not a question whether the man merited condemnation, but was simply a question of expediency. If it would be to the advantage of the nation or of the high priest's family, by their ethical code, he ought to be condemned.

When Jesus was arrested he was brought directly to Annas. Edersheim says, "We know absolutely nothing of what passed in the house of Annas......except that Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas." This statement seems to conflict with the narrative in John 18: 19-24, and we feel compelled to believe that Annas asked Jesus of his disciples and his teachings and that it was in the presence of Annas that an officer struck Jesus. It may be said that Annas had no authority, but a man like Annas did not hesitate to usurp authority, and his authority, rightful or usurped, is recognized in the record that he sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas. It is possible that Annas and Caiaphas may have occupied the same or adjoining palaces, and that both may have been present at the informal examination of Jesus; but it seems most consistent with all the narratives to infer that the first examination, desribed by John, took place in the presence of Annas.

The high priest first asked Jesus of his disciples and his teachings. This was probably done in order to get evidence that could be used in the more formal trial before the council or sanhedrin. To these questions Jesus replied, "I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews came together, and in secret I have done nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them that have heard me, what I

spake unto them; behold, these know the things which I have said." For this reasonable, respectful answer one of the officers, no doubt a minion of the hight priest, struck Jesus with his hand. For this indignity the high priest was as responsible as if he had struck the blow himself. For such an act Paul administered a most scathing rebuke to another high priest, but the meek and lowly Jesus only said, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but, if well, why smitest thou me?"

Who shall say how this act was recorded in heaven for final appeal to the just Judge of all the earth before whom Annas has been summoned? How did the heavenly Father regard this act? Annas the cunning, conscienceless Sadducee, seventy years old, but not venerable, seized his opportunity to insult and abuse the Galilean prophet who had interfered with his sacrilegious traffic in the temple.

Up to this point, the Pharisees had been in the lead as persecutors of Jesus; but, now, the whole wicked business passes into the hands of irreligious, time-serving, avaricious priests, and, of all these, Annas was probably the oldest and wickedest.

It was after midnight when Jesus was arrested, and the informal examination by the high priest took place while messengers were sent out to bring a quorum of the sanhedrin or of a section of it for the formal trial. It would require considerable time to assemble and organize the Jewish council, and it was probably during that time that Peter denied his Lord.

Peter and John had followed their captive Master, and, having come to the door of the high priest's house, were standing without, when John, who knew the high priest, went out and brought Peter into the court. As he came in at the door, or as he was seated by the fire that had

been kindled in the court, the maid who kept the door said, "Art thou also one of this man's disciples?" and Peter said, "I am not." Not long afterwards, on the porch, another maid saw him and said, "Thou art also one of them," but Peter denied, saying, "I am not." An hour elapsed, and Peter had returned to the court, where Jesus could see him and hear his words, when he was again charged with being a disciple, and he began to curse and to swear, saying, “I know not this man of whom ye speak." Immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew, and the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, and Peter went out and wept bitterly. He had been tried and had fallen. What had seemed impossible had come to pass. Thrice, and with vehemence, he had denied his Lord.

When Jesus was brought before the council the chief priests and whole council sought false witnesses against him in order to put him to death, but their witnesses did not agree until two were found who testified that they had heard him say, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands." This was not exactly what our Lord had said about destroying the temple. He had said, after his first cleansing of the temple, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2: 19), and he had spoken of the temple of his body. But the testimony of these witnesses made its impression, for on the cross his enemies cried in derision, "Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself."

The high priest knew that he needed other evidence before the council could demand authority from the governor to put Jesus to death; and, standing up, he sought for evidence from Jesus himself, saying, "Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?" When Jesus still held his peace, the high priest said, "I

adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God." To this adjuration Jesus gave an answer that brought the trial to a speedy conclusion. First, he said, "I am," and then he added, "Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." He had listened in silence to the testimony of false witnesses against himself, but, when the high priest inquires whether he is the Christ, the Son of God, the silence is broken, though he knows that his answer will secure his condemnation. His disciple had denied him, but he will not deny nor conceal himself. In the presence of the council, facing death, Jesus proclaims himself the Christ, the Son of the living God, and foretells his coming glory.

The high priest then played his part as a sanctimonious hypocrite. Unlike the Pharisees, he had no horror of blasphemy, but when it suited his purpose, he rent his garments, and, with pretense of holy horror, exclaimed, "He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses?" This man had come to the judgment seat determined to condemn the prisoner. He had on a former occasion used words capable of expressing a deeper meaning than he had ever dreamed of, when he had said, "It is expedient that one man die for the people," and, now, forgetting his law of expediency, on the charge of blasphemy, he would put that one man to death. Whether every man in the council regarded our Lord's words as blasphemy we are not told. No one was found who would speak a word in behalf of this betrayed, deserted, denied prisoner; no one would withstand the judgment of this rich, unscrupulous, Sadducean high priest; and so the whole council echoed, "blasphemy!"

Then were the flood gates of reviling and abuse thrown open. They spat in Jesus' face and buffeted him; and,

« السابقةمتابعة »