Jesus Before The High Priest

MARK 14:53-64—MATTHEW 26:47-75; LUKE 22:47-65; JOHN 18:2-27

Golden Text: “He is despised and rejected of men.” Isa. 53:3

Mark 14:53. Jesus was first led to Annas (John 18:13), who, although deposed by the Romans, was the rightful high priest according to the law, the office being for life, and he was probably so regarded by the Jews, who, therefore, sought counsel of him first. His son-in-law, Caiaphas (the same who had prophesied that it was expedient that one man should die for the people— John 18:14), was the acting high priest appointed by the Romans. Apparently, Annas agreed with the general sentiments of the rulers, and, after asking Jesus a few questions about his doctrine and his disciples, sent him bound to Caiaphas. (John 18:19-24)

Since it was contrary to the Jewish law to hold a session of the Sanhedrin for the trial of capital offences by night, and this being the night of the paschal supper, making it still more objectionable, it is clear that this was an irregular meeting of this assembly of the nation’s representatives, drawn together by common consent to participate in the crime of condemning their Messiah, Jehovah’s Anointed. From it, however, were carefully excluded, evidently, a few such men as Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus (John 19:38, 39; 7:50, 51) and probably a few others known to be favorably inclined toward the new teacher. They probably knew nothing of it.

Verses 55-59. What an astonishing fact is here stated: that the great men of the most favored nation on earth—the learned men, the wise men, the rulers, the men of years and experience, the religious teachers—should thus deliberately, and of long premeditation, wickedly conspire against the purest and most noble character that had ever graced the earth. Not only had they frequently deputed emissaries to catch him in his words as he taught in public, but finally they had bribed an apostate disciple to betray him and a band of Roman soldiers to arrest him, although there was no charge against him. And then this august, learned and dignified assembly, having secured their hated prisoner, busied themselves to find some two witnesses whose testimony should agree together, according to the requirement of the law (Deut. 19:15), in order to his condemnation. They found many who willingly bore false witness against him, but none whose witness agreed together.

Verses 60-62. Failing in their effort to satisfy this requirement of the law, the high priest then endeavored to force Jesus to criminate himself, saying, “Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?” But he (wisely) held his peace and answered nothing, knowing that the truth was not desired and would avail nothing with these men who so warmly cherished murder in their hearts. And, further, he had no disposition to defend himself, knowing that his hour was come for the sacrifice of his life. But when further urged to express himself by the inquiry— “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”—knowing that his reply would be like the signing of his death warrant, he deliberately answered, “I am,” and added this prophecy—“And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

This prophecy compassed the certainty of his death and resurrection, and pointed to his return in the end of the Gospel age in power and great glory—the power and glory of his Kingdom, which he had previously affirmed was not to be of this world, or dispensation, of which Satan is the prince (John 14:30), but of the world to come, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (Heb. 2:5; 2 Pet. 3:13)

This frank and fearless acknowledgment of his divine origin and appointment as the long predicted Messiah, the Savior of Israel and the world, was taken as blasphemy, and the hypocritical high priest, whose very robes were symbolic of the blessed one who stood in their midst fulfilling to the letter the predictions of the prophets, rent his clothes in token of astonishment and horror at such blasphemy, saying, “What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death”—the prescribed punishment for blasphemy. (Lev. 24:16; Deut. 18:20)

Thus fell the Jewish hierarchy into the ditch of unbelief and crime, and the masses of the people, who had shifted upon them their personal responsibility in the matter of receiving and rejecting Christ, considering first whether any of the Pharisees or of the rulers believed on him, fell with them, crying, “His blood be on us and on our children.” Well hath the Psalmist said, “It is better to trust in the Lord [in the word of his truth] than to put confidence in man; it is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.” Let Christians of the present day heed this in this corresponding period of the Gospel age, when again the unfolding of truth in its due time is bringing the professed people of God to a crisis “which shall try every man’s work [of faith], of what sort it is.” If we lean upon human props, we shall surely fall; but the word of the Lord endureth forever.

The Great High Priest Arraigned

JOHN 18:15-27

“He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” John 1:11

Although it is declared that all the disciples fled, John points out that Peter and himself followed at a distance. Their deep interest in the Master would not permit them to go to their homes; they must keep him in sight, and note how things would go with him to the very last. They were powerless to assist him against such great odds, and in the face of his own refusal to be assisted, but they were not powerless to love still. John, it seems, was somewhat acquainted at the high priest’s palace, and readily gained entrance, not only for himself but for Peter.

But these favors and privileges became tests to Peter, and led to his denial of the Lord. And so it is with some of the Lord’s followers of to-day. When they are by themselves, or with others of like precious faith, they are bold and courageous to confess the Lord and to serve him, but if perchance they get into palaces or amongst the servants and officers and high priests of nominal Christianity they are ashamed of the Master and fear to confess him, lest they should be cast out of the privileges enjoyed in the society of those who have not yet recognized the truth. Far better would it have been for poor Peter had he openly declared, “Yes, I am one of his disciples, and since I presume that none such are wanted here I will go out.” How much so honorable and proper a course would have reflected to his credit in the eyes of all just persons, and how much blessing it would have brought to him!

Peter’s failure to take the proper course brought him later to a still more trying situation, when a kinsman of the man whose ear he had cut off asked him point-blank the question, “Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” Matters were getting pretty close for poor Peter. It was more now than a question of leaving the fire and the privileges and honor of the high priest’s court: it was now a question of his identity as the one who had defended Jesus with a sword, and hence a question of his own arrest and trial at the same tribunal with the Master. One false step leads naturally to another; to have now declared for Jesus would have been a public testimony that he was a liar, in addition to leading to his apprehension, and so Peter concluded that in self-defense he must not only repeat the lie, and again deny the Master, but to make the matter more strong before his accusers he began to curse and to swear that he knew not Jesus. Poor Peter! Truly, as our Lord told him, Satan had desired to have him, to sift him, and surely he was being severely sifted at this time. It seems almost a miracle that he recovered his balance and repented and found forgiveness for his sins. It would seem that our Lord’s prayer on his behalf operated through his previous announcement to Peter of this denial, for after he had thus denied, and after he had noticed the cock crow, Peter remembered the Lord’s words, “The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.” With feelings better imagined than they can be described, Peter hastily left the High Priest’s apartments now of his own accord, going out into the shadows of early morning, that he might weep bitterly and entreat the Lord’s forgiveness.

There is a lesson for us in the fact that Peter’s failure was along the very line of his strength. He was naturally courageous, had boasted of it, and yet failed for lack of courage. “When I am weak then I am strong,” implies that he who feels himself strong is really weak, as in Peter’s case. Let us all learn to specially guard our supposedly strong points of character, remembering that we have a wily foe. We are to realize our weakness, our vulnerability at any point, except as we keep watch at every point and rely upon the great Captain of our salvation to assist us.

John does not tell the whole of the story; he omits reference to Peter’s cursing and swearing. His love for Brother Peter evidently influenced him to omit that portion of the narrative not absolutely necessary to confirm the Lord’s prediction. The account of the cursing and swearing is given by Mark, whose Gospel record is supposed to have been indited by Peter himself, Mark being in a large measure Peter’s amanuensis. (Mark 14:66-72)

Jesus was examined of the High Priest: that functionary, however evil and murderously disposed at heart, felt bound to at least preserve the forms of justice, although from the records elsewhere we know that himself and his associates amongst the priests and Pharisees had already determined that Jesus must be put to death because his influence amongst the people was inimical to their own—because his teachings cast theirs into the shade and exposed their hollowness, bigotry and hypocrisy. Our Lord answered his questions accordingly; refusing to make any specific explanations he merely referred to his teachings, appealing thus to his rights as a Jew. His answer was the perfectly proper and legal one; he had been arrested without just cause, and the judge was now seeking to find a cause. Our Lord merely pointed out that the cause for the arrest must be shown to have been something which preceded the arrest.

It is not necessary for us to suppose that the officer who struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, and reproved him for improper language toward the Chief Priest, was intentionally unjust in the matter. Rather we may suppose that, influenced by his desire to appear zealous in support of the High Priest’s position and judgment, this accentuated his mental unbalance as a fallen man, and led him to imagine evil where there was none. This circumstance, however, gives us the opportunity for discerning just what our Lord meant by his expression in the sermon on the mount, “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also.” (Matt. 5:39) Our Lord did not literally turn the other cheek to the man and ask him to smite that also, nor did he even receive the smiting in silence. He was not willing that his good conduct and proper language should be evil spoken of without at least a proper endeavor to correct the matter. Hence he asked his smiter to point out wherein he had spoken evil, and suggested to him that if he could not point out the evil he should acknowledge his wrong in having improperly smitten for an evil which could not be pointed out.

In the light of this illustration the Lord’s people are to understand the command, to turn the other cheek, to mean simply that they are not to resist evil with evil; rather, they are to receive more evil than return it in kind. On the contrary, however, they are to resist evil with good; they are to expostulate with evil-doers, as the Master did, endeavoring with kindness and gentleness to have them see the right and the wrong of the questions in dispute.

It would appear that our Lord’s trial by the Jews was held before Caiaphas, the acting High Priest, the son-in-law of Annas, the proper High Priest according to the Jewish law; and the fourteenth verse identifies Caiaphas as the one who had previously declared, “ ‘It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.’ And this spake he not of himself, but being High Priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” (John 11:50-53)

Here is an illustration of how a great truth may be seen from two opposite standpoints. The prophecy of Caiaphas was strictly true—in strict accord with all the declarations of the Lord’s Word, and was sent through one of the channels which the Lord had been in the habit of using (the High Priest’s office) yet the person occupying that office, being out of heart-harmony with the Lord, was out of harmony also with the various features of the divine plan, and became an instigator and cooperator in an evil work, which nevertheless was working out in harmony with the divine foreknowledge and program.

There is a lesson in this also for all of the Lord’s people in respect to every feature of divine truth. It is not sufficient that we see certain facts; it is necessary also that we be in heart-harmony with the Lord, else we might, like Caiaphas, aid in fulfilling the Lord’s plan but nevertheless taking a wrong position may be bringing ourselves, with others, under a curse, while still cooperating in the fulfillment of the divine plan. Let all who are of the light, and who have received the truth, seek more and more to walk in the light and in the Master’s footsteps, carefully avoiding the evils which we see illustrated in the cases of Judas, Peter and Caiaphas.

The trial before the Jews was of three parts:

(1) The examination before Annas the legal High Priest which was wholly unofficial. He sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas the official High Priest of Roman appointment, and as such the President of the Sanhedrin, whose courtroom was probably in the same palace, across the corridor, where Peter stood warming himself.

(2) The preliminary trial before Caiaphas is supposed to have been held between two or three o’clock on Friday morning—the members of the Sanhedrin or Jewish Court having been summoned by messengers as soon as Jesus was apprehended. This hearing was preliminary in the sense that it examined Jesus and formulated and decided upon the charges on which it would convict at the formal meeting at dawn, about five o’clock. For the Jewish law forbade a trial by night. (Luke 22:66-71)

(3) The formal trial before the Sanhedrin at dawn was merely a ceremony—a farce. The determination to kill Jesus having been reached long before his arrest, the matter of his condemnation was rushed through for two reasons. (a) The great Jews feared the common people would defend Jesus against their trumped up charges, which were the only ones even they could formulate. (b) The Passover was at hand and they wanted him killed before it. Ah! how little did they realize that they were being permitted of God to exercise the evil desires of their hearts and thus to fulfill types and prophecies to the very day.

A lesson on this for God’s people is, that it is not sufficient that we go through a form or ceremony of justice; nor is it sufficient that we know in advance that we cannot circumvent the divine plan or hinder its fulfillment. Many will find in the day of reckoning and revealing, that they have served God’s purposes without honor or profit—in a manner that brought upon them condemnation instead of approval. Even the great Adversary Satan will ultimately find (but not in any degree to his credit or blessing) that all his opposition to God, to Christ, and to “the brethren,” has been overruled by divine wisdom and power for good, by him who “maketh the wrath of man to praise him.”

It is all-important then, that we have more than forms of justice, of righteousness; we must have the spirit of righteousness, a love of righteousness—a sincere desire to know and to do God’s will, else like as the Jews condemned and killed the Just One we might with forms of justice condemn and injure his “brethren.” And to have the desirable condition of love for God and for righteousness implies a full consecration of heart to the Lord. Thus every examination of the subject brings us back to the fact that full consecration to the Lord, full self-surrender to his will as revealed in his Word, is the only proper and only safe course for any to pursue if they would hope to hear the Master’s words, “Well done good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joys of thy Lord.”

It was during the interim between the 3 A.M. examination and the 5 A.M. formal conviction of our Lord by his influential enemies, that he was subjected for two hours to the mockery and insults described by three of the Evangelists. (Matt. 26:67, 68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-65)

These insults were committed by the “servants” and well illustrate the fact that low minds delight in the misfortunes of those whom they realize to be their superiors. These servants manifested the same spirit as their masters—the chief priests and Pharisees—their methods were ruder because they were more ignorant and coarse. The spirit of Christ, the spirit of love, on the contrary, whether in the educated or in the ignorant, is a spirit of love, of gentleness, of sympathy, of kindness. By their fruits both spirits may be known. “If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his.

“Ye Have Condemned The Just One”

MATTHEW 26:57-68

“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16

Caiaphas filled the office of high priest at the time of our Lord’s condemnation. It was he who had already expressed himself to the effect that it was “expedient that one man should die for the nation, that the whole people should not perish” (John 11:50; 18:14), thus illustrating how God may at times use the thoughts and intentions of wicked men to express prophetically profound truths. It was indeed expedient, not only for the Jews, but also for the whole world, that a ransom should be given for Adam and his race, to the intent that they might be released from divine condemnation and ultimately be granted an opportunity for return to divine favor and life everlasting.

But so far as Caiaphas was concerned, he was probably thinking only of human expediency. He perceived the growing interest of the multitudes in Jesus of Nazareth. He realized that even the most learned of the scribes and Pharisees were no match for Jesus in doctrine and logic, and that the teachings of Jesus were so opposed to his own and the general traditions of Judaism that their acceptance must mean a religious revolution. This, he reasoned, would mean the loss of the prestige of the nation with the Romans, and the abrogation of all the rights and privileges accorded to them. So far as Caiaphas was concerned, his mind, his judgment, was already made up in respect to Jesus, and he merely sought opportunity to carry it into effect—to kill him. But being outwardly and nominally a religious man and a representative of justice, he felt constrained, so far as possible, to put the murder of Jesus, which he felt to be a necessity for the public good, in the light of an act of justice.

Caiaphas evidently was the ringleader in the conspiracy against Jesus. It was he and his associates who bargained with Judas; it was the under-priests and under-officers of his court and household and his servants who had been sent with Judas to arrest our Lord in the night, when he would be away from the multitudes; and we may presume that it was by his orders that our Lord was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, a man of great influence amongst the Jews, who had previously been high priest, and whose term of office had not yet expired, according to Jewish custom, although their conquerors had forced a change in this respect, and had appointed Caiaphas chief priest instead of Annas. The sending of Jesus to Annas was evidently intended to secure his sanction to his arrest and trial, and the influence which that would imply.

When the band appeared before Annas he questioned Jesus respecting his teachings, etc., but he did not attempt a trial of the case, not having the authority. When our Lord refused to answer the questions, and referred Annas to those that had heard him, he was merely following the judicial course, and suggesting to Annas the propriety of not departing from the law in the examination of a prisoner. Annas signified his assent to the arrest by not reproving it or demanding his release, but sending the prisoner bound to Caiaphas—thus saying by implication, I agree in your course that this man should be arrested and should be tried as a dangerous character—dangerous to our theories and institutions.

Caiaphas had already the sympathetic cooperation of many of the leading Jews, especially of the priests, some of whom were in the “band.” We may presume that the time during which the prisoner was taken to the house of Annas was occupied in dispatching other messengers in various directions, to notify the members of the Council—the Sanhedrin—that the disturber of their peace had been arrested, and to assemble for his trial. It was probably about two o’clock in the morning that Jesus was brought before Caiaphas. The Jewish law forbids the trial of a prisoner between sunset and sunrise, and any verdict secured during the unlawful hours would have been invalid, illegal. Nevertheless, the chief priest was anxious to have his case well in hand by sunrise, and to hasten as much as possible the death of the prisoner, which he had already determined upon. The matter of the trial was a mere farce anyway, but he would see what evidence he could lay before the Sanhedrin at sunrise, and hence he immediately and illegally began the examination of Jesus, calling for witnesses.

No doubt it had been freely stated that Jesus had announced his Messiahship, although we know that this was not the case so far as the gospel narratives show. He had been very guarded in his remarks in public, and even amongst his chosen twelve disciples he had not announced himself freely, but had first drawn from Peter the declaration of our Golden Text, “Thou art the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.” Jesus merely acknowledged that Peter had stated the truth, and that he had been guided in the statement by the holy spirit. When, therefore, Caiaphas sought witnesses even on this point he found none capable of giving satisfactory testimony. One witness who thought he had something of importance gave a somewhat garbled account of our Lord’s words respecting the Temple; but when they sought a second witness to corroborate this they could not find one who would testify exactly the same, and the Jewish Law required at least two witnesses in any such trial.

Exasperated at his poor success in securing testimony, Caiaphas determined to try a different plan, and an illegal one—to excite his prisoner so that he would make some incriminating confession. Therefore he rose up, and with a manifestation of indignation, and to give the effect that very damaging testimony had been given, he asked the prisoner if he had not heard the testimony against him, and if he had nothing to say in self-defense. Our Lord made no response; he was not there to defend himself, and if he had been there was no need of defense. There was nothing criminal in what he had said respecting the Temple, even if it had been testified by a dozen witnesses. Caiaphas was foiled, but being a shrewd man he quickly changed his tactics, and affecting to wonder if indeed the claims of Messiah might be true he put Jesus under oath, saying, “I adjure thee [I put thee under oath] in the name of the living God; tell us whether thou be the Messiah, the Son of God.”

Our Lord was not bound to answer this question, which he well knew would be used to incriminate him as a blasphemer. Nevertheless, he was not seeking to avoid death, but had already determined that the cup which the Father had given him was to be drunk, and hence he answered saying, according to John, “Thou hast said”—you have stated the truth; or, according to Mark, “Jesus said, I am”—the Messiah, the Son of God. He followed this with a declaration that those who there witnessed his humiliation and mock trial should in due time recognize him as the honored of God, sitting down at the right hand of the majesty on high, and to be revealed in the clouds of heaven as the great Judge, the Messiah.

Caiaphas could not hope to have a clearer expression, nor anything that would come nearer justifying his predetermined verdict of guilty of blasphemy, and hence with a mock expression of righteous indignation he tore his “simla” or upper garment, exclaiming, Blasphemy! We have heard blasphemy! Then, appealing to the members of the Council present, who were already in sympathy with the murderous procedure, he enquired whether or not they were satisfied with the evidence, and, as pre-arranged, they agreed that this was a clear case of blasphemy, and that Jesus was worthy of death.

Dr. C. H. Plumptre has well said: “No other words in the whole Gospel records are more decisive against the views of those who would fain see in our Lord only a great moral teacher, like Socrates or Sakya Mouni. At the very crisis of his history, when denial would have saved his life, he asserts his claim to be more than this, to be all that the most devout Christians have ever believed him to be.” The most devout Christians are those who believe our Lord’s own words without distorting them—that he was with the Father before the world was; that the Father had sent him into the world to be its Redeemer; that “never man spake like this man;” and that he was different from all other men, in that “he was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners”—that the life of the man Christ Jesus was unblemished and from above. But the most devout Christians in all ages have avoided claiming for Jesus what some of the less devout Christians have claimed for him, but what he never claimed for himself; viz., that he was his own Father, Jehovah.

The most devout Christians have believed the words of Jesus, when he said, “The Father is greater than I;” and, “As the Father hath sent me, so send I you.” They recognize the oneness between the Father and the Son as being, not a oneness of person, but a oneness of heart, of mind, of purpose, according to our Lord’s own declaration in his prayer for his people, when he said, “I pray for them … that they may be one, as we are [one].” (John 17:11) The most devout Christians acknowledge that the only one, “the man Christ Jesus,” was the perfect representation of the Heavenly Father, so that he who saw the Son (who was the express image of the Father’s person) saw the Father also—in the only way in which it would be possible for mankind to see “the invisible God,” “whom no man hath seen nor can see,” but whom the Only Begotten of the Father hath revealed to men perfectly. (John 1:18)

Thoughtful and intelligently devout Christians, when they examine the words of our Lord in this connection, can see nothing in them whatever to the effect that our Lord Jesus here contradicted the other plain statements of his testimony, but rather they find it in full conformity. Nor did the Jews for one moment think that our Lord meant that he was the Heavenly Father. This was not the question asked: they had no expectation that Messiah would be Jehovah, but Jehovah’s representative, and agent, the Son of God, “The Messenger [servant] of the Covenant, whom ye delight in.” (Mal. 3:1) The charge of blasphemy against our Lord was based upon his claim of being a Son of God—not the Father himself. The charge was made on a previous occasion (John 10:29-36), when the accusers expressly declared his crime was that of calling himself a son of God—that thus he was placing himself on a parity with God, as being of the same kind or nature. On that occasion Jesus answered their quibble by quoting them from the Psalms, where all of the Lord’s consecrated people, the Gospel Church, are called “sons of God,” and he pointed out to them that he merely claimed the same title that was there freely given to those who would come into that relationship, through justification of faith, whereas he himself had always been a Son of God in full harmony with the Father.¹

1. For a treatise of this subject, and of the expression, “Son of Man,” see, Vol. 5, Chap. 6.

When this session of the Sanhedrin, or court, broke up it was to wait until sunrise, when the formal meeting took place, and the verdict of blasphemy would be reaffirmed, and thus have the semblance of legality. (Matt. 27:1) Meantime our Lord stood bound in the high priest’s palace court for probably three hours, and it was during this interim that the high priest’s servants, etc., took occasion to show their sympathy with the great ones by abusing the prisoner. Some spat upon him; others smote him with their hands and with sticks, and in general displayed their littleness and meanness. A favorite diversion with them seems to have been, after blindfolding him, to smite him and enquire whether or not he were prophet enough to name his tormentor. All these things our Lord endured, so far as the record shows, without a murmur. He accepted this all as a part of the cup which the Father had prepared for him; and the Apostle, evidently referring partly to these experiences, says, “Consider him who endured such contradictions of sinners against himself, lest ye be weary and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood.” (Heb. 12:3, 4) If we refuse the cup the Father prepares for us it will only return to us later perhaps with a more bitter draught: and if avoided entirely we cannot have share with our Lord in the glory, honor and immortality for which the trying experiences now permitted are our preparation.

The servant is not above his Lord, and if they have smitten and spit upon and buffeted the Master, none of the servants should be surprised or complain if they should have somewhat similar experiences. And when such things come to them while in the line of duty they are to esteem them as our Lord did, part of the cup which the Father has prepared, and they are to endure them without murmuring; on the contrary, as the Apostle suggests, they may give thanks that they are counted worthy to suffer some of the reproaches of Christ. (Col. 1:24; 2 Tim. 1:18; 2:3; James 5:11)

But the Apostle urges, “Let none of you suffer as an evil-doer nor as a busybody in other men’s matters.” If suffering should come upon us justly for our faults, we could not glory in it, but rather be ashamed; but if any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed—if he suffer for the truth’s sake, for righteousness’ sake. It may be urged by some that sufferings cannot come now, in our enlightened day, and when the name of Jesus is popular; but, we answer: Yes; it is still true, as the Apostle said, “Whosoever will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” Many now claim the name of Jesus who know not Jesus nor the Father, and who have not his spirit, just as many at that time delighted in the name of Moses, and sat in his seat as Doctors of the Law, yet knew not, appreciated not, the law of Moses and the law of God. (1 Pet. 4:15, 16; 2 Tim. 3:12)

“Despised And Rejected Of Men”

MATTHEW 26:57-68

“He is despised and rejected of men,” wrote the Prophet Isaiah (53:3), as in the Golden Text of this lesson. How strange it all appears to those who have come to know the Lord and to appreciate man from the standpoint of the divine Word. Nevertheless, as we take up the narrative and follow the circumstances as though we were there present we perceive that it was difficult for the chief actors surrounding our Lord to realize the true situation. And turning from these to ourselves in the present time we may apply a lesson and realize that we, too, are in touch with great and important subjects in the present harvest-time; that we, too, probably are so close to great events as to be unable to appreciate their true import; that we, too, should go very carefully and should continually watch and pray lest we also fall into temptation. The thought of our own precarious condition will doubtless give us sympathy with those whose reprehensible conduct is noted in this lesson.

Our last lesson left Jesus and the disciples at the garden gate. There Peter, who had one of the two swords previously mentioned, started to use it in defense of his Master, at the first blow smiting off the ear of Malchus, one of the servants of the High Priest’s court. As Jesus said when instructing them to bring their swords, and being informed there were two swords already in the company, “It is enough,” so this mere demonstration of the willingness of the disciples to defend him was quite sufficient, and the order at once came to “Put up thy sword.” The opportunity was thus furnished for Jesus to heal the ear and so display his gracious magnanimity toward his enemies. The disciples apparently learned most thoroughly the lesson that he that taketh to the sword shall perish by the sword, and hence never afterward do we hear of their using force or violence in the service of the Lord. How well it would have been had all the followers of the Lord learned and applied to themselves this same lesson. The neglect of it has stained the pages of history to the dishonor of the Lord’s teaching and been injurious to his real cause, while favorable to nominal Christianity—Churchianity, Christendom and its large crop of tares. All of the Lord’s people should take to heart this message and remember the Lord’s word, “Blessed are the peacemakers; they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt. 5:9) We are never to use the sword, earthly power, in seeking to promote the cause of the Master. He has power enough, and when the time comes for its exercise he will take to himself this great power, and the sword of justice will be unsheathed and cause a terrible time of trouble. But that will be the due time, and the Lord will then so take charge of the affairs of earth that the lessons from that experience will prove profitable and not injurious. The only sword which the Lord’s people now may use is the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, and it is to cleave its way by its own sharpness and penetrating power rather than force of language and invective, or any manifestation of anger on the part of those who use it. On the contrary, they are directed to speak the truth in love, that thus the truth may do its own work in its own way.

“All Forsook Him And Fled”

At first glance it would appear that the disciples were very cowardly when they all forsook the Master at the time of his arrest. But then we must remember that this was our Lord’s own suggestion. He said to the officers, “If I am the one you seek, let these go their way.” They discerned that they could be of no use to the Lord after he was in the hands of the high priests, who represented the civil court, the law of the land, and whom they knew to be prejudiced against Jesus. They may have even taken Jesus’ words to imply a command that they should go their way. Furthermore they were perplexed: they had been expecting such different results from their adherence to Jesus. When they looked for his exaltation he talked about his crucifixion, was sad and distressed, and now was arrested. Everything was perplexing, disheartening, and they probably went to their homes thoroughly discouraged, except Peter and John, who followed him afar off. Arriving at the High Priest’s palace and courtroom, Jesus was first led before the aged priest Annas and cross-questioned a little, and then sent to the court of his son-in-law, the official priest, Caiaphas. His presentation before Annas was probably merely a matter of courtesy, as apparently it was Caiaphas who had caused his arrest and was waiting with certain elders of the Jews to examine him preparatory to his trial, with a view to ascertaining just what charges they would bring against him. (But in the morning it was evidently not thought worthwhile to have a formal trial according to the Law. Hence the unlawful night hearing was really the trial. The determination to get Pilate to try and execute Jesus was the thought, though to Pilate they subsequently implied that they had condemned Jesus lawfully.)

Seeking False Witnesses

We have little reason to doubt that the High Priest and elders had considerable knowledge of Jesus, his teachings and his mighty works. We are informed that one of his last miracles in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the awakening of Lazarus from death, had so stirred the Scribes and Pharisees that they determined that Jesus must be put to death, because they feared that a few more such miracles would thoroughly arouse the people on his behalf and thus break their control over them. They now had their victim in their grasp, arrested without the knowledge of the people and without arousing any disturbance. And they still had the murderous intention respecting him. It was merely a question how they might execute it—not how they might serve the ends of justice, but how they might appear to conform to the requirements of justice and the Law, of which they were representatives, and yet accomplish the villainy, the murder, that was in their hearts. Hence we read that they sought false witnesses: they did not wish true witnesses, who would tell what they knew about the Master, but false witnesses, who would misrepresent him, his teachings, etc., either ignorantly through misunderstanding him or designedly with a view to gaining favor with the officers of the court. But they found none. It is certainly to the credit of those connected with the court, aside from its chief officers, that they neither seriously misunderstood our Lord’s teachings nor were willing to misrepresent them. Finally, the best they could do was to find two witnesses who declared that they had heard Jesus say that if the Temple were destroyed he would be able to raise it up in three days. Nothing about this was false evidence—it was what the majority of those who heard probably understood our Lord to mean. It was subsequently, under the enlightenment of the holy Spirit, that the apostles understood that he “spoke of the temple of his body”; hence these two witnesses are not to be blamed as false witnesses, though doubtless in their ignorance they supposed that the testimony they bore was against Jesus and discreditable to him, as showing a spirit of boastfulness and a disregard for the greatness and grandeur of the Temple. The High Priest, however, realized that he had utterly failed of getting any testimony against the Lord. But he did not wish this to so appear to all the people present, and hence he affected to regard this testimony as very damaging, and indignantly questioned Jesus whether or not he heard that testimony, and if he had nothing whatever to say in rebuttal—was he unable to refute the witness, the testimony? Jesus answered nothing. Had the witnesses repeated his words exactly there was nothing in them upon which any law would condemn him.

“Art Thou The Christ?”

Finally, unable to get Jesus to discuss the Temple question, and thus possibly say something that could be considered incriminating, the High Priest bethought him that a leading question put in a most solemn form might succeed in getting Jesus to make some admission that would be incriminating. The question was, “Tell us whether thou be the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God?” Caiaphas probably knew that Jesus had not boasted of his Messiahship, that rather he had gone quietly about his work, doing good and instructing the people, and allowing his works to testify that “never man spake like this man,” and that he was working the works of him that sent him and was therefore the Messiah. It was a question, therefore, whether or not Jesus would incriminate himself by admitting his Messiahship. Had he denied it what recourse for a charge against him would have remained? But Jesus did not deny this question. To have remained silent even would have been to deny himself, denying the truth, denying the High Priest of the nation the knowledge and the corresponding responsibility of the hour. It was every way due to the head of the nation he should know that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Our Lord therefore answered, “Thou hast said,” that is, I assent to what you have said, or, I am the Messiah, the Son of God, and I will volunteer further to assure you that by and by, hereafter, ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the glories of heaven.

In this statement, as in nearly all of our Lord’s utterances, much was said in few words. It was not his intention nor would it have been proper to have explained the future of the divine plan at that time under those circumstances to those people. “The secret of the Lord is with them that reverence him, and he will show them his covenant.” Hence our Lord did not say, as he might have said, “You are about to condemn me; I will be crucified this day between two thieves; I will rise again on the third day; I will ascend to the Father in forty days thereafter; I will then send my holy Spirit at Pentecost, and the work will be begun of a spiritual kingdom which will find the very elect throughout the whole earth. When these are found I will come again at my second advent in power and great glory, not to be tried by you, but to be your judge and to be the King and Ruler of the whole world, and to grant the blessings of the Millennial Kingdom to every creature, with full opportunity of coming to full knowledge and full blessing.” We see that what our Lord stated implied that he knew all this, but it was not the proper time for its declaration.

What lessons are there for us in connection with these facts? One is that when we seek information on any subject we should be thoroughly honest, thoroughly just, and not seek opportunity to misrepresent another, no matter what useful ends we might suppose would be served by such a course. To all who are the Lord’s people in any sense of the word justice must stand out prominently. It is the very foundation of God’s throne, we read, and surely must be the foundation of all character amongst those who are the Lord’s and who hope ever to come off conquerors in this present time. Only the honest, only the just, seem to be influenced by the message of the Lord’s Word at the present time, and those who lose their candor, their honesty, their sincerity, seem very certain to lose the Truth also. Let us all beware, therefore, of any slackness along this line of justice—toward God, toward ourselves, toward our friends, toward our enemies. We cannot, we must not, be less than just to any, though we may be and should be more than just to all—yea, loving, generous.

Feigning Righteous Indignation

Hearing Jesus’ admission that he was Messiah, the High Priest realized that this was the strongest, indeed the only complaint he could make against the Lord of anything that had the appearance of evil. Nor was there evil in this, for it was the truth; but feigning great piety, great respect for God, great reverence for the promise of God respecting Messiah—feigning to be thunderstruck with such a claim by Jesus, Caiaphas arose, his face full of pretended indignation and wrath against such a claim, which he affected to think so dishonored God as to be blasphemy, he rent or tore his robe as an expression of his pretended righteous indignation. He cried out to the people, “This is blasphemy—what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? What would be the proper punishment for such an awful crime as this? How shall we deter others from similarly coming forward and claiming to be Messiah, the Son of God, healing the sick, giving examples of his power in awakening the dead and casting out the devils from the people?” The elders, there assembled for the very purpose of murdering Jesus, answered, voted, “He is worthy of death.” Jesus must wait, and they meanwhile reviled him—if not the elders and officers, yet with their knowledge and without their hindrance—and smote the Lord and spat upon him and derided him, and, calling him a Prophet, asked him to prove his ability as a Messiah and prophet by naming his tormentors. “But as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth” to defend himself, nor did he use the power invested in him, nor call for the twelve legions of angels who he previously declared would have been ready to respond for his release. On the contrary, he realized that he was but carrying out his covenant of sacrifice and submitted himself accordingly, desiring that this or whatever was the Father’s will might be done in him.

What is the lesson in this for us? We have covenanted to learn of him, to follow his example. How do we receive the buffetings, the trials, the “contradictions of sinners”? Are we similarly patient, longsuffering? Do we endure these, realizing that nothing could happen to us except by our Father’s knowledge—nothing that he is not both able and willing to overrule for our good? It will not do for us to say that if we deserved the evil treatment we could take it patiently, for we are to remember the truth of what one of the thieves confessed, “This man hath done nothing amiss.” We cannot say that we have been perfect in all of our dealings with those who may despitefully use us and persecute us, even though our intentions have been the best, and even though we have in some degree rendered good for the evil we receive. Let us remember the Apostle’s words on this line, “For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye might follow in his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him who judgeth righteously.” (1 Pet. 2:20, 23)

Let us not only see to it that we are as nearly as possible faultless and undeserving of reproaches and buffetings, but when these experiences come to us let us remember to take them patiently, uncomplainingly, and thus to more and more develop and exhibit the character-likeness of our Lord. Those who thus do, have the Lord’s guarantee that every such experience shall prove a blessing in the end. Those who, on the contrary, undertake to “battle for their rights,” show that they either do not understand the nature of the covenant they have made to take up the cross, or else that they are unwilling to comply with the terms of that covenant.

Arraigned As A Blasphemer

MATTHEW 26:57-68

“Who when he was reviled, reviled not again.” 1 Peter 2:23

We cannot do better at the opening of this study than quote the words of Mr. Chandler. He said: “Many remarkable trials have characterized the judicial history of mankind. The trial of Socrates, before the dikastery of Athens, charged with corrupting the Athenian youth, with blaspheming the Olympic gods and seeking to destroy the constitution of the Athenian Republic, is still a sublime and thrilling chapter in the history of a wonderful people.

“The trial of Alfred Dreyfus is still fresh in the memories of men. The French Republic is still rent by contending factions. His friends say that Dreyfus was a Prometheus who was chained to an ocean-girt rock while the vulture of exile preyed upon his heart. His enemies still assert that he was a Judas who betrayed, not God nor Christ, but France and the Fatherland. But these trials, one and all, were tame and commonplace compared with the trial and crucifixion of the Galilean peasant, Jesus of Nazareth.”

It is not for us to say that the Jews were wholly excusable in their course of injuries toward Jesus, in causing his crucifixion by the Romans. On the other hand, it is proper for us to consider everything that could be thought of calculated to mitigate the severity of our judgment regarding the injustices there practiced. And it is proper also that we should consider what, from their standpoint, would seem to be extenuating circumstances. This is everywhere recognized as just treatment. The attorney, defending a criminal who has pleaded guilty to the charges against him, is considered to do only his duty by his criminal client when he presents whatever in the circumstances of the case would tend to prove that the culprit had cause, or thought that he had reason, for his misdemeanor.

Viewing the Jewish people of nearly nineteen centuries ago from this standpoint, we get a more reasonable view of the situation than is otherwise possible. We hearken first to St. Peter’s words respecting the transaction. He said, “I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Had they known, they would not have killed the Prince of life. (Acts 3:15-17)

The Jews did not for one moment suppose that the great Messiah, foretold to be their Prophet, Priest and King—like unto Moses, but greater; like unto David and Solomon, but greater; like unto Melchisedec, but greater—would appear as “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” Although those very words were written of him by the Prophet, they were hidden from their eyes of understanding by the glorious things related of him in other prophecies. They saw the glories. They saw not, understandingly, the sufferings. To this day they interpret the sufferings of their nation as being those which will ultimately inure to their advantage. The prophetic descriptions are not concentrated nor collected, but scattered, “here a little and there a little,” so written that they could not be understood at the time; nor were they understood even by the Lord’s disciples until after his resurrection from the dead, when he explained them, and, subsequently, by the holy Spirit, enabled them still more fully to understand that thus it was written in the prophets, and thus it behooved the Son of Man to suffer before entering into his glory—before he began to bless Israel and all the world.

Yea, today many Christians are as deeply confused on this matter as are the Jews. Many have rejected entirely the thought of Messiah’s glorious Kingdom reign for the general blessing and uplifting of Israel and all humanity. From their standpoint, if “the sufferings of Christ” were intended to prepare the way and usher in his Kingdom of glory, then the program must have failed, or else his Kingdom of glory is to be a heavenly Kingdom and completely in accord with the prayer taught by our Lord, “Thy Kingdom come; thy will be done on earth.” The trouble is that they will not realize that where the sufferings of Christ, the Head, ended, the sufferings of the “Body of Christ” began—the sufferings of “the Church, which is his Body”—filling up the measure of the afflictions of Christ, which are behind. (Col. 1:24) As soon as the “Church, the Body of Christ,” shall have finished the bearing of the cross, after him, following in his steps to the end of the journey, then the Kingdom glories will be ushered in. Israel’s blindness will be turned away, and the blessing of the Lord will begin to fill the whole earth.

The Jews, who caused the crucifixion of Jesus, certainly did so in much of the same spirit which led St. Paul—then Saul of Tarsus—to cause the stoning of St. Stephen. As Saul was forgiven, so Israel is to be forgiven; as the Scriptures declare, “The Lord will pour upon them the spirit of prayer and supplication,” and then they will see, with the eyes of their understanding, “him whom they pierced, and they will mourn for him” (Zech. 12:10), and their mourning will be turned into joy; for, as Joseph forgave his brethren, so will this great antitypical Joseph of the throne of earth freely forgive those who caused his crucifixion.

Politics And Selfishness As Religion

The Jews are not so different from other people now, nor were they then. History indicates that some of their highest offices were held by irreligionists for their political influence; thus the chief-priest, at the first advent of our Lord, was a Sadducee, who wholly disbelieved in the promises of God to Israel, including a disbelief in the resurrection of the dead. Similarly today there are high-priests, both amongst Jews and Christians, who disbelieve, and yet hold high positions. Amongst Christians there are D.D.’s who are unbelievers; and many of the most notable rabbis amongst the Jews also declare themselves thorough unbelievers. We are not claiming that such unbelieving Christian and Jewish ministers would lightly espouse and support an unjust procedure against an innocent man. We do not know about this. It has yet to be tested, perhaps. We do know, however, that when faith in a Divine Revelation and in a Divine supervision of human affairs is lost the natural effect is that the losers of the faith become more and more policy-men and consider policy the extreme of human wisdom, particularly in the guidance of affairs of Church and State.

Taking history for it, that the leaders of Judaism at the time of our Lord were Higher Critical unbelievers (Sadducees), we can readily see that their policy was to curry favor with the Roman Emperor and to seek to hold the common people in subjection to themselves. To these, then, it must have seemed almost a calamity that a poor man, although of noble birth, of the family of David and the Tribe of Judah, should gather about him a handful of nondescript fishermen, tax-gatherers, etc.; that he should pronounce himself a king and declare the setting up of his Kingdom to be near, and that by the exercise of some supernatural power for the healing of their diseases he should attract the “common people” to his standard, but not the learned. We can well imagine their reasoning that, if this thing, the popularity of Jesus, continued to increase, it would shortly reach the ears of the Roman Emperor, and then all their claims for imperial favors would be discounted, and they would be rated as a nation of rebels.

The riding of Jesus into Jerusalem, just before the Passover, on an ass, after the manner of the kings of Israel and surrounded by a multitude shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David who cometh in the name of the Lord,” capped the climax, so to speak, and convinced these unbelieving Jews, politicians, occupying religious offices, that it would be far better that one innocent man should die than that the whole nation should be turned into turmoil and wrecked by the Romans in consequence. How many American preachers, judges, officials, etc., would, in this enlightened day, be inclined similarly to decide such a matter! And is not this the policy which always prevails in monarchies? Fancy such a commotion in the capital of Germany, Italy, France, Austria, Russia, Great Britain, the United States. Fancy that after such a parade, mimic though it might appear, the adored one should go to the temple and execute a long-neglected law, and, in thus exercising his religious rights, suppose that he should drive out the money-changers and merchants from the outer precincts of their chief religious Cathedral! What would be done to such a person today? Do we not know that in the most civilized lands he would be arrested and imprisoned, and in the more savage lands he would be beaten or executed? When, therefore, we view the situation from this standpoint we lose any spirit of antagonism which might have been ours; it turns to sympathy—that a religious nation should allow itself to get into the hands of politicians to such an extent.

Brought Before Caiaphas

It was very courageous on the part of St. Peter that, after having smitten off the ear of the High Priest’s servant (though the wound was healed by Jesus), he followed his Master into the Court of that high priest to see what would be done. The arraignment was at night, although it was contrary to Jewish Law to try a prisoner at night for any serious offense. But there was an excuse. This was a special case; haste was necessary, because whatever should be done must be done quickly; the very next day the unbelieving officials perceived that Jesus had great influence with the common people. They believed him to be a brilliant but harmless fraud. He had committed no crime, but he was a disturber of the peace, and they felt fully justified in taking his life. The Feast of Passover was at hand and would last a week, and it would be contrary to their Law that any execution should take place during that week. Besides, they feared the amount of influence which Jesus might exercise during the week, when there would be from one to two millions of people in and around Jerusalem from all over Palestine. They had already determined that their action must be short, sharp and decisive. This was decided before the arrest was made. They were ready and waiting at that midnight hour to carry out their murderous designs, for the good of their nation, as they thought. The examination was merely a preliminary one to get together such evidence as could be rushed through rapidly at a prearranged session the following morning.

He Was Charged With Blasphemy

They had difficulty in finding a charge; for what had Jesus ever done except acts of kindness and the uttering of words of wisdom and correction and hope? Blasphemy was a serious charge under the Jewish code. They would charge him with that as being the easiest to prove. He had said, when near the temple, “Destroy this Temple, and I will rear it up in three days.” “But he spake of the Temple of his Body.” Some of those who heard him understood him to speak of the literal temple. This they charged was blasphemy, because it took years to build the temple, and for Jesus to rebuild it in three days would mean a claim on his part of Divine power. But the charge did not seem sufficiently strong, even for those who had premeditated his murder. They wanted something to give a color of justice, at least, to their findings. So the chief-priest thought to get Jesus to commit himself in their presence and said, I adjure thee by the Living God to tell us whether thou be The Christ, the Son of God. Jesus replied that this was true, and that they would yet see him in heavenly glory and power at the right hand of Divine favor. This, the high priest declared, was sufficient proof of blasphemy. “Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy, What reply ye?” And the council answered that he was worthy of death. The rabble in the Court, hearing the commotion, felt at liberty to abuse the prisoner, as they had done others. They showed their contempt of him by spitting upon him. They derided him by smiting him and saying, Prophesy, tell who smote thee. “He was reviled, yet reviled not again.”

Mock Trials Of Jesus

MATTHEW 26:57-68

“As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth.” Isaiah 53:7

Justice is a quality of mind which naturally and properly commends itself to every rational being, civilized or heathen. Every nation strives, therefore, to have just laws upon its statute books; and it must be admitted that many of the laws of the world, including those of Lycurgus and those of Caesar, have manifested much wisdom and much justice.

But the Jewish Law, given by God Himself at Mount Sinai at the hand of Moses, properly claims the highest place; and the laws of all nations in any degree claiming to recognize Christianity properly seek to represent the principles of justice on the highest plane. Nevertheless, when it comes to the interpreting of these laws, and their application to individual cases, we find that everywhere there is a tendency to make excuse and depart from the laws and from the principles of justice under the claim that the circumstances and conditions of the case make necessary such a violation of law and of just principles.

The story of the conviction of Jesus unjustly, by a Jewish court and in violation of Jewish Law, must not surprise us nor be thought different from what has occurred in numerous cases in other courts.

An Illegal Arrest

Jesus was arrested, neither by Pilate’s orders nor by Herod’s nor by their soldiers. His arrest was made at the instance of the high priest and his associates, who particularly had concluded that the life and ministry of Jesus were inimical to their plans and projects and to what they considered to be the best interests of Judaism. The murder of Jesus was plotted in advance. But the murderers sought some excuse for their conduct, as all murderers do; and, being politicians, they sought also an outward form or semblance of justice, having regard for the opinions of others of tenderer consciences than themselves.

Under the charge of the priests were a number of men who served as policemen in the Temple and its precincts. These were the servants of the high priest; and, armed with maces, swords and lanterns, they followed Judas, who knew beforehand that on this particular night Jesus did not intend to go to Bethany as usual, but purposed to rendezvous with His disciples in the Gethsemane olive orchard, or garden.

They brought Jesus directly to the house of Annas, a superannuated high priest, whose son-in-law Caiaphas officiated in his stead. Annas attempted an examination of Jesus, but met with little success, and turned Him over to Caiaphas, whose house adjoined, being in the same courtyard. There, at probably three o’clock in the morning, the Sanhedrin had gathered.

The plot for Jesus’ death was deeply laid. The hours between the time when Judas left Jesus and the other Apostles at the Passover Supper and the time of this trial were spent in gathering the Sanhedrin from their various homes throughout the city. Conditions were considered desperate enough to justify all this arrangement for the murder of Him who “spake as never man spake”—because He taught the people—because His teaching of the people was weakening the power of the Scribes and the Pharisees and of the traditions of the elders. (John 7:46; Matt. 26:55)

The theory of erroneous religious teachings is that ignorance and superstition are necessary for the preservation of sacerdotal power. Thus always has Error hated the Truth; thus always has Darkness hated the Light. The condemnation of Jesus was merely another triumph of Darkness over the Light. Yet it was a triumph only in appearance; for God’s Plan was thus being carried out. The great Atonement for sin was thus being arranged for, the result of which will be the ultimate overthrow of sin, Satan and death, and the establishment of righteousness and truth worldwide and everlastingly.

An Iniquitous Trial

The Sanhedrin was composed of seventy of the most influential Jews, an ecclesiastical court, whose voice properly had great influence with the Roman Governor, in whose hands lay, at this time, the power of life or death.

Caiaphas not only filled the office of high priest, but in this particular case he acted as prosecuting attorney. While gathering the Sanhedrin, he had not been forgetful to collect witnesses, who are said to have been suborned, or bribed, to give their testimony. Of course, no attempt was made to bring before the Sanhedrin any of those whom Jesus had relieved from the power of evil spirits, nor any of those whose blind eyes He had opened or whose deaf ears He had unstopped, nor any of those whom He had awakened from the sleep of death. The high priest knew, for instance, particularly about the case of Lazarus, but they desired no such testimony. They were bent upon murder, to be accomplished in an apparently judicial form.

Caiaphas called the witnesses, but found that their testimonies were self-contradictory; and it was a part of the Jewish Law that at least two witnesses must agree before any matter could be considered proven. Finally, two partly agreed that they had heard Jesus say something about the Temple—that He was able to destroy it and rebuild it in three days. They probably had misunderstood Jesus. However, their testimonies were too slight to make a basis for conviction.

As a last resort, Caiaphas attempted to get Jesus Himself to say something which he could construe to be blasphemy. To the various questions Jesus answered nothing; but now Caiaphas exclaimed, “I adjure Thee by the living God, tell us truly, Art Thou the Messiah?” It would not do for Jesus to keep quiet and fail to answer this question. To have done so would have been to deny this great truth and to have failed to give proper witness to the Sanhedrin. He therefore avowed that Caiaphas had expressed the truth in what he had applied.

Caiaphas leaped to his feet, anxious to grasp the opportunity of calling this statement blasphemy; but Jesus proceeded to say, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven.” Affecting great horror at this, Caiaphas dramatically tore his priestly garment, as implying to the Sanhedrin that as a representative of God amongst them he had heard something awful indeed. Turning to the Sanhedrin, he inquired, “What further need of witnesses have we? Ye yourselves have heard His blasphemy. What think ye?”—What is your verdict? Their answer was, “He is worthy of death.”

Apparently only two refrained from this vote—Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both of whom had learned to have great respect for Jesus. But what power or influence could they have? At the very most, they could claim that the proceedings of the Sanhedrin were illegal, that the Law forbade that they should sit as a court to condemn anybody to death in the nighttime. Hence Jesus was remanded to an adjoining court-room while the Sanhedrin waited to take its official action after daybreak. Meantime, in that waiting-hall, Jesus, condemned by the high priest as a blasphemer and malefactor, was subjected to various indignities by the attaches of the high priest’s palace, who ignorantly supposed that whatever was done by the high priest must be right.

Submissive To The Divine Will

The Scripture that declares, “Ye have killed the Just One, and He doth not resist you,” aligns perfectly with the Golden Text of this lesson, and both clearly apply to Jesus during His trials. Jesus did not open His mouth—not because He lacked understanding, but because He chose not to defend His life. Fully aware that nothing was occurring contrary to the Father’s will, He willingly allowed events to unfold, without attempting to interfere with the outcome.

Who could doubt that His brilliant mind and His tongue, which “spake as never man spake,” could have mounted a defense so compelling that Caiaphas and the entire Sanhedrin would have trembled and refrained from condemning Him? Yet He spoke only what was necessary to present the Truth. It was His enemies’ own misinterpretation and perversion of that Truth that led them to accuse Him of blasphemy.

The Scriptures suggest that the followers of Jesus should not expect complete justice in this world, nor should they always anticipate being fully understood. Like their Master, they too must recognize that the “cup” of their experiences is overseen by Divine Wisdom. If they remain obedient to God’s arrangement, they can trust that every experience—no matter how difficult—will ultimately work together for their highest good. As it is written: “We know that all things work together for good to those who love God.”