"This
territory isn't big enough for the two of us."
In an old
Western movie, menacing words such as these would be spit out by a gruff
gunslinger. What about at a biased court martial with Jesus as the accused, the
Sanhedrin as the biased jury, and Caiaphas as the hanging judge?
Recognized
as the supreme court of the Jews, the Sanhedrin was composed of 71 members.
Among the numbered were Sadducees (priests), Pharisees and Scribes (experts in
the law), and respected men who were elders. Presiding over the court was the
High Priest.[i]
In the
dead of night, the assembly had gathered at the house of Caiaphas. Witnesses
were brought forward to testify against Jesus, but their testimony didn't
coalesce. Not knowing what to do, the religious authorities' frustration
escalated.
Did
You Know...?
Not all
on the council were against Jesus. Two dissenting members, Joseph of Arimathea
and Nicodemus, played a significant role later in the gospel account.
Sights
set on Jesus, the High Priest stood up to take matters into his own hands.
"Have you no answer? What is it
that they testify against you?"
"Are you the Messiah, the Son of
the Blessed One?"
Although
Jesus avoided similar questioning in earlier situations (Mark 7:5-6, 11:29), not answering this question could
have serious repercussions. If he remained silent, it might be seen as a denial
of his mission.
"I am."
Those two
words, while politically charged, were not blasphemous. A Jewish king could
have the titles of Messiah and Son of the Blessed One. However, it was
what followed "I am" --
Jesus' quotes of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 -- that provided the Sanhedrin something
in which to grab a hold.
'''You will see the Son of Man seated
at the right hand of the Power,' and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.'''
Jesus
tells the Jewish supreme court, "You've come to judge me? The role will soon
be reversed." In melodramatic fashion, Caiaphas rips open his clothes.
Jesus had identified himself as the judging Son of Man.
"Why do we still need witnesses?
You have heard his blasphemy!"
The
Sanhedrin reached a verdict of death; yet, with no power to inflict capital
punishment, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, would have to consent. In the
frenzy of heightened emotion after the rush-to-judgment, the spitting, beating
and mocking of Jesus began.
Straight-forward
story, right? Everything on the up-and-up, yes? Not so much. Rules and laws
were broken right and left.
1) A
meeting violation. "The official meeting place of the Sanhedrin was the
Hall of Hewn Stone which was within the Temple precincts, and the decisions of
the Sanhedrin were not valid unless reached at a meeting held in that
place."[ii]
Where did they meet? At Caiaphas' house.
2) A
timing violation. "The court could not meet at night, nor could it meet at
any of the great feasts."[iii] "m. Pesah 4:1, 5-6 makes clear that one
may work at most up until noon on the day on which Passover begins at
sundown."[iv]
When did they meet? After midnight. On the feast of the Passover.
3) A
testimony violation. Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 clearly state evidence must be
truthful, must come from more than one witness, and details must align. Also
witnesses were supposed to be examined separately. Did any of that happen? "Their testimony did not agree."
4) A
trial violation. "No one could be asked to incriminate himself, but that
was the very question the High Priest asked."[v] Caiaphas couldn't get what
he wanted so he took matters into his own hands. He asked a leading question.
5) A jury
violation. "Each individual member of the Sanhedrin must give his verdict
separately, beginning from the youngest and going on to the eldest."[vi] With the rush for a
verdict, that rule seemed to have been skipped.
6) A
judgment violation. "If the verdict was a verdict of death, a night must
elapse before it was carried out, so that the court might have a chance to
change its mind and its decision towards mercy."[vii] In a no-mercy decision,
only a few hours pass before Jesus will be brought before Pilate. So much for a
required time-lapse.
Violation
after violation after violation after violation,... Jesus should've been
released from the get-go. But who was going to put a screeching halt to these
blatant injustices? The deck was stacked. Who would speak on Jesus' behalf? The
disciples had fled. No followers were there to advocate for Jesus.
"Someone
has to go, Jesus,... and that's someone is you!"
NEXT
Courage
in cowardice
[i]
The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- p. 349
[ii]
The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- pp. 349-350
[iii]
The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- p. 350
[iv]
Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 91
[v]
The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- p. 350
[vi]
The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- p. 350
[vii]
The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- p. 350
No comments:
Post a Comment