Christ's Trials and Condemnation.—Mark 14:53-72; 15:1-14

Notes

Notes on the Lesson.

1. Question 6.—The arraignment before Annas, the greatest enemy of Jesus, does not seem to have been satisfactory to the fiery priest. The Revised Version reads John 18:24 thus: "Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest." He was not satisfied with its results; he therefore sent him to his son-in-law. Caiaphas may have been in the same palace. Both Annas and Caiaphas are called high priest. See Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6. Annas is supposed by some to have been president of the Sanhedrin.

2. Question 7.—The priests and rulers were so deceived by the devil that all sense of justice seemed to be lost. The devil led them to reason, no doubt, that the end—putting Christ to death—justified the means—the way in which he was condemned. They therefore sought not simply for witnesses against him, but for false witnesses. Matt. 26:59. They did even worse, if possible, in the case of Stephen; they suborned hired men, to testify against him. Acts 6:11.

3. Question 15.—This was the formal and regular trial and condemnation. The Jews, according to law, could not condemn a prisoner in the night unless the trial had lasted through the day previous. It is hardly to be supposed that previous to this the Sanhedrin had been regularly summoned.

4. Question 17.—The former trials were to satisfy the Jews. They had no right to sentence Jesus to death, much less to execute the sentence. He was condemned as worthy of death, not because he called himself the Messiah, but because he said he was the Son of God. He must be sentenced by the Roman governor if he was to die; and they therefore accuse him before Pilate of treason, of setting himself up as a king in the place of Cæsar. Pilate's "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law," brought out the fact that they were determined to put Jesus to death. John 18:31.

5. Question 23.—The limited space of one lesson will not permit the bringing in of the wonderfully interesting details of the trial of Jesus. The narrative will endure all the study which the student may be able to put upon it, and new light and new phases will flash upon him at every turn. It would be interesting to bring out what led the people to choose as they did, how each step Pilate took led him farther and farther into the power of the priests, how he tried to cleanse himself from guilt, how he was warned of God, how he repeatedly tried to set Jesus free, appealing both to their sense of justice and pity, but how at last he felt compelled to yield or lose his position, etc., etc.; but much of this the student must seek out for himself.

6. Question 27.—Jesus was condemned by Pilate for treason or rebellion against the Roman Government. Pilate would have, no doubt, released him if it had not been for the last argument brought by the Jews: "If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar." Although Pilate knew that Jesus did not design to usurp the earthly power of any, that his kingdom was not of this world, he also knew that the unscrupulous priests would not stop at any measure to accomplish their end, and that they would work his own ruin if he did not condemn Jesus. He, therefore, gave sentence as they required, and condemned him for setting himself up as King of the Jews. See Mark 15:26.