Content

Questioned by the high priests (Mk 14:53-65; Mt 26:57-68; Lk 22:54,63-71: Jn 18:12-14,19-24)

This passage records the process of Jesus being questioned by two high priests. The most sarcastic thing is that it was the two earthly high priests judging the heavenly high priest, and the basis of the verdict was concerned with his heavenly identity!

(Annas (亞那) and Caiaphas (該亞法))

After Jesus was arrested, he was first brought to Annas: “Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.” (John 18:12-13) Why was Jesus first carried to Annas? It is because Annas himself was also the high priest. Luke 3:1-2 introduced the government of the land of Israel in the time of John the Baptist: “Now in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (該撒提庇留) (the Roman Emperor), Pontius Pilate (本丟彼拉多) being governor of Judea (猶大巡撫), and Herod being tetrarch (分封的王) of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea (以土利亞) and of the region of Trachonitis (特拉可尼), and Lysanias (呂撒聶) as the tetrarch of Abilene (亞比利尼), Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” This verse tells us that Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests at the same time when John the Baptist started his ministry. After Jesus has risen to heaven, both names are mentioned again in the Book of Acts. That was when Peter and John were brought before the council the next morning after being arrested and put in custody for one night, for the reason of preaching the resurrected Jesus: “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, ‘By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?’ ” (Acts 4:5-7)

John 18:14 introduced Caiaphas as such: “Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people (一個人替百姓死是有益的).” This record is found in John 11:47-53. That was when Jesus made Lazarus alive from the tomb and this shocking news was transferred to the ears of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, bringing them a great alarm: “Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, ‘What do we? For this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.’ And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, ‘Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient (益處) 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 the 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. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.” Hence, before Jesus was arrested, Caiaphas has already heard of Jesus and his miracles. They were worried that were not Jesus put to death, the Jewish people who followed him might honour him as the king of the Jews and revolt against the Roman government, causing the Romans to invade the land of Israel. Their lives would also be in danger. So, arresting Jesus was to take away this ‘eyesore’.

(questioned by Annas)

Among the Four Gospels, only John mentioned that Jesus was first taken to Annas for questioning. Perhaps it was a normal procedure first to bring Jesus to the older high priest, who happened to be Caiaphas’ father-in-law. The high priest started questioning Jesus at night while Peter was warming himself in the court of his palace. (John 18:15-17, 25-27) John 18:19-23 recorded the brief process of questioning Jesus by Annas: “the high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine (以耶穌的門徒和他的教訓盤問他). Jesus answered him, ‘I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort (聚集); and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said.’ And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, ‘Answerest thou the high priest so?’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I have spoken evil (我若說的不是), bear witness of the evil (你可以指證那不是); but if well, why smites thou me?’ ”

During the judgment process, the questions raised for Jesus were all about his disciples as well as his speeches and doctrines made in public. It was probable that the high priest asked Jesus whether he had said the words against him by the accusers. Jesus refused to answer the high priest directly regarding those accusations but advised the high priest to ask his public audience for verification. Since no conclusion could be drawn after questioning, “Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.” (NRSV, “Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.”) (John 18:24)

(questioned by Caiaphas)

Strangely enough, nothing was mentioned regarding the questioning of Jesus by Caiaphas in the Book of John. The author directly stated that Jesus was transferred to Pilate the Roman governor for further litigation (John 18:28, “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early”). On the contrary, the other three Gospels all mentioned the questioning of Jesus by Caiaphas but skipped the questioning by Annas. Luke said that Jesus was taken to the high priest’s house (supposedly Caiaphas’ house). “And the men that held Jesus (看守耶穌的人) mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, ‘Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?’ And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. And as soon as it was day (天一亮), the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council.” (Luke 22:63-66) Matthew said clearly that Jesus was taken to the palace of Caiaphas the high priest for questioning and then handed over to Pilate in the morning. (Matt 26:57-68, 27:1) Mark’s record was about the same as Matthew’s, except that Caiaphas’ name was not mentioned. The question is: In which house did Peter enter and deny Jesus three times, the house of Annas or Caiaphas? (One possibility is that Annas and Caiaphas lived in the same palace, since they had father and son-in-law relationship.) Another question is: Was Jesus questioned in Caiaphas’ house or in council, at mid-night or in the morning? It was kind of confusing concerning the place and time of questioning according to the records of the Four Gospels.

Anyway, let us focus on the process of questioning Jesus by Caiaphas. “And they led Jesus away to the high priest (Caiaphas), and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.” (v53) According to Mark, it was mid-night hour. A judicial proceeding held at mid-night in a religious court was extremely rare, since the proceeding was normally held at daytime. Say for example. According to the Book of Acts, before Peter and John were brought to the council for questioning, they were put in custody for a night until next morning: “And as they (Peter and John) spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day (就把他們押到第二天): for it was now eventide (因為天已經晚了)…And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and…were gathered together at Jerusalem.” (Acts 4:1-6) So, the fact that Jesus was questioned in mid-night hours was a proof of operating according to the perfect timing of God’s plan.

(false witness)

“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” (v55-56) Now Jesus, the defendant, was by himself whereas the plaintiff was the whole council of Jewish religious leaders, who “sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death”. The judge was the high priest, the head of the council. He also stood on the side of the council and wanted to obtain some concrete evidence to claim his life too. Hence, the whole legal proceeding was not only unfair to Jesus but also conducted to his disadvantage.

(the issue about the rebuilding of the temple)

“At the last came two false witnesses, and said, ‘This fellow said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” ’ ” (Matt 26:60-61)

This last testimony against Jesus referred to the incident that was only found in the Book of John. After Jesus had ‘cleansed’ the holy temple in Jerusalem for the first time, “then answered the Jews and said unto him, ‘What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?’ Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ Then said the Jews, ‘Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up (再建立起來) in three days?’ But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” (John 2:18-22) Mark 14:57-59 states, “And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, ‘We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’ But neither so did their witness agree together.” (v58-59) According to the memory of the witnesses, Jesus said he would “build another made without hands”. As we can see by the reaction of the audience, nobody understood at that time what Jesus meant by building another temple in three days. They all thought that Jesus was referring to another physical temple built by men. It was not until Jesus died and rose again the third day did the disciples understand that it was “the temple of his body” that was built again.

The Son of God was raised by God from the dead and then served as 'the temple' himself, signifying that He replaced the physical temple in Jerusalem in terms of its worshipping function. The children of God no longer have to go to any physical temple to worship God like the Jews in the Old Testament era. According to John 4,  the issue about the place of worship was touched upon in the dialogue between the Samaritan woman and Jesus, “The woman saith unto him, ‘Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshiped in this mountain; and ye say (你們倒說), that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father…But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him.’ ” (John 4:19-23) There is no more need to have a physical temple for worshipping God because the resurrected Lord has become our ‘temple’. Jesus said in John 14:19-20, “Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” Since the Lord is in us and serves as our temple, we can worship the Father through Him. In Rev 21, John saw the vision of the new Jerusalem in heaven and said, “And I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” (Rev 21:22)

Even if the Jews took Jesus’ word to mean another physical temple, the accusation of the witnesses was not grounded at all. Just consider this: Jesus’ word, whether it was a lie or not, could not be verified at the time of accusation in that the original temple still existed and was not demolished yet when they put this charge against him. He had neither destroyed the temple nor rebuilt it physically. The mere saying of such word, though it sounded exaggerating to the hearers, could not prove him a liar. Thus, his speech was far from breaking any religious law. Hence, such accusation was pointless at all for any judgment decision. What’s more, “neither so did their witness agree together.” (v59) Since the witnesses’ words had contradiction with each other and could not be verified, the evidence was not strong enough to prosecute Jesus for any crime, not to speak of granting death sentence.

As the judge of the council, the high priest gave Jesus opportunity to defend for himself. “And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, ‘Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?’ ” (v60) However, instead of exercising his right as a defendant to refute all those meaningless charges, he “held his peace, and answered nothing.” (v61) Why?

  1. The charges did not stand at all: “For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” (v56) For such contradictory charges, it was not necessary for Jesus to respond at all.

  2. Referring to the charge such as the rebuilding of the temple, they had no way of understanding his words without the Holy Spirit. Only his disciples understood that he “spake of the temple of his body” after receiving the Holy Spirit. In John 3, when Jesus spoke of the “born again” truth with Nicodemus, Nicodemus, “a man of the Pharisees” and “a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1), tried to understand Jesus’ word from a human perspective but in vain. Jesus said to him, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12) Jesus could explain to the high priest and the others that ‘building the temple in three days’ referred to his resurrection within three days after his death; but would they be satisfied with his explanation? Of course not.

  3. Since he had made up his mind to ‘drink the cup’ so that the Father’s will be done, he knew he was to be “delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him” (Mk 9:31). Choosing to remain quiet at this moment and letting the unfair litigation proceed on was part of accomplishing God’s plan of salvation.

(the issue about his heavenly identity)

While Jesus remained silent to all the contradictory and false charges, the high priest could do nothing with him, nor could he prove him guilty of any charges. Now the high priest finally touched upon the heart issue of the prosecution: “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed (那當稱頌者的兒子)? ” (v61) Matt 26:63 recorded the high priest as saying, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us (我指著永生神叫你起誓告訴我們) whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” This was an extremely solemn question that caused the high priest to demand an honest answer with an oath. Since this question was about Jesus’ heavenly identity which he revealed from time to time in his preaching ministry, he was very much eager to give an honest answer before everyone in the council:

  • “And Jesus said, ‘I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. ’ ” (v62)
  • (Matt 26:64) “Jesus saith unto him, ‘Thou hast said (你說的是); nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’ ”
  • (Luke 22:67-71) “ ‘Art thou the Christ? Tell us.’ And he said unto them, ‘If I tell you, ye will not believe. And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.’ Then said they all, ‘Art thou then the Son of God?' And he said unto them, ‘Ye say that I am (你們所說的是).’ ”

For all the other questions posed to him, he would not say ‘yes’ or ‘no’; but for the question regarding his heavenly identity, he admitted right away with a definite ‘yes’, even though they would not believe in him as the Son of God anyway, nor would they answer whether they believed him or not. Besides confessing himself as Christ, he even foretold them that a seat in heaven was already reserved for him, which was on the right hand of the throne of God, symbolizing that he would equally share the power of God. He even foretold that he would descend from heaven again. Both sayings helped to support the fact that he was truly the Son of God.

At the end of the Book of Mark, after the Lord Jesus had given his final instructions to the eleven disciples, “he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” (Mk 16:19) His word of second coming in the clouds of heaven was confirmed by the angels to the eleven disciples: “And when he (Jesus) had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, ‘Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.’ ” (Acts 1:9-11)

The reply of Jesus confessing his Christhood together with his prophesies was far more exaggerating to the high priest than his word of rebuilding the temple in three days! Jesus was again telling them the heavenly things that were hard for them to understand and believe. “Then the high priest rent his clothes (撕開衣服), and saith, ‘What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy (你們已經聽見他這僭妄的話了). What think ye?’ ” (v63) Why was the high priest so furious that he tore his clothes? Obviously, judging from his emotional reaction, he was extremely infuriated to hear of Jesus, a human being, being so lofty and putting himself as high as God. Nobody dared to claim himself as God like Jesus in his knowledge. As a matter of fact, throughout the Four Gospels, whenever the issue concerning Jesus’ heavenly identity was raised, conflict always arose immediately between him and the Jewish leaders, sometimes even with the unbelieving crowd of audience. So in Matt 26:65, Caiaphas himself formally prosecuted Jesus with a severe religious charge: “he hath spoken blasphemy”. Luke 22:71 has such record: “And they said, ‘What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth’ ” Since everyone in the council heard these so-called ‘blasphemous’ words of Jesus, anyone could serve as witness against him, including the high priest. When the high priest sought counsel from the council, he received a unanimous answer: “they all condemned him to be guilty of death” (v64). They have finally found an excuse to condemn Jesus to death, which was exactly the end purpose of their arrest of him.

(the sin of blasphemy)

Why is ‘speaking blasphemy’ a serious religious crime that deserves death penalty? Let us study two cases in N.T. that have to do with blasphemy.

  1. Matt 12:22-32 records an incident of Jesus healing a blind and dumb person “possessed with a devil”. While the people were amazed at Jesus’ power of healing, the Pharisees heard it and said, “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils (鬼王別西卜).” Jesus warned them later, “All manner of sin and blasphemy (褻瀆的話) shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matt 12:24,31-32) Jesus exercised the power of the Holy Spirit to drive out demons but the Pharisees claimed that he was using the power of Satan, which Jesus rebuked as “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”. Jesus seemed to point out that the Pharisees were saying that the Holy Ghost was devil. In other words, they were demonizing the holy nature of God, which was a direct insult against the Holy Spirit—an unforgivable sin.

  2. On the other hand, in John 10:30-33, Jesus said before the crowd in Jerusalem, “ ‘I and my Father are one.’ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?’ The Jews answered him, saying, ‘For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy (說僭妄的話); and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.’ ” Making oneself God is in a sense dwarfing the divine nature of God. The sentiment of the Jews here was more or less the same as that of the high priest and the whole council against Jesus. 

From the above incidents, we may gather that blasphemy is speaking something to insult God and His godly nature, or offending God by claiming oneself as God. Since Jesus confessed that he was Christ the Son of God, he was considered speaking blasphemy and deserved death sentence, which was in line with the charge that the Jews made against Jesus later before Pilate, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

The thing is that Jesus was truly the Son of God; he was speaking the truth, not blasphemy at all. He not only spoke the truth out of his own mouth, but said he would prove it with action by virtue of resurrection and his second coming. It was the unrighteous people who, due to their disbelief and envy (Mark 15:10, “For he (Pilate) knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.”), condemned the righteous with an unfair legal proceeding.

(the heavenly high priest)

It is worth noting that when Jesus gave them a ‘yes’ answer, the high priest was so agitated that he suddenly tore off his clothes. His act of tearing off his priestly garment seemed to signify that the sacred duty and function of the earthly high priest was nullified, to be taken over by Jesus, who was “called of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (蒙神照著麥基洗德的等次稱他為大祭司)”. (Heb 5:10) The author of Hebrews has quoted Psalm 110:4 (“The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”) to prove that Jesus Christ, prior to his birth, was already destined by God to be the high priest in place of the earthly high priest forever. Thus, in the kingdom of God, Jesus has become the heavenly high priest, as the author said in Heb 4:14: “we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens (升入高天尊榮的大祭司), Jesus the Son of God.”

Following the unfair judgment by Caiaphas of condemning Jesus to death, the unrighteous people around began to insult the Son of God: “some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him (用拳頭打他), and to say unto him, ‘Prophesy’ (Matt 26:68, ‘Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?’); and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.” (v65) His heavenly status was not only scorned but challenged by them with all kinds of insult. He willingly swallowed all these insults in silence, as described in Isa 53:7, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth.” The reason behind it was: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him (耶和華卻定意將他壓傷); he hath put him to grief (使他受痛苦)…By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many (有許多人因認識我的義僕得稱為義); for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isa 53:10-11) It is God’s will that this heavenly high priest (righteous servant) should offer up himself as the sacrifice on the altar of God to bear our iniquities. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered (還是因所受的苦難學了順從); and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him (就為凡順從他的人成了永遠得救的根源).” (Heb 5:8-9)

Now, for us, the unrighteous who are made righteous by the Son of God, “we have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” (Heb 8:1) “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Heb 9:28) These are the prophesies that Jesus made before the unrighteous high priest, i.e. Caiaphas, who caused the righteous man to die.

(reflection)

As believers, we can face unfair accusations while we are persistently upholding the truth. There are times when we may have to keep silence and patiently wait for God’s righteous judgment. We may even have to bear insults and torture by the unrighteous people. The apostle Peter says in I Peter 2:20-23, “For what glory is it, if when ye be buffeted for your faults (因犯罪受責打), 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 should follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was guile (詭詐) found in his mouth; who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.”

This is the godly character of our honourable “high priest over the house of God (治理神的家)” (Heb 10:21), who learned “obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb 5:8). We are “a royal priesthood (有君尊的祭司)”. (I Peter 2:9) By following the example of our royal high priest, we should make ready to offer ourselves as sacrifice on the altar of God, as Paul urges in Rom 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice (活祭), holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Hopefully, by learning ‘obedience through suffering’, we might bring “eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb 5:9)--“Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Heb 12:2)

 
Copyright © mymedcorner.net All rights reserved. Powered by CommuniLink