BIBLE STUDY: February 12th
The meeting opened with prayer.
After a short introduction, we proceeded to consider the third & fourth Stations.
The Third Station: Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin.
Mark 14:53-65
53
They led Jesus away to the high priest, and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together.
54
Peter followed him at a distance into the high priest's courtyard and was seated with the guards, warming himself at the fire.
55
The chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus in order to put him to death, but they found none.
56
Many gave false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree.
57
Some took the stand and testified falsely against him, alleging,
58
"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands and within three days I will build another not made with hands.'"
59
Even so their testimony did not agree.
60
The high priest rose before the assembly and questioned Jesus, saying, "Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?"
61
But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, "Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?"
62
Then Jesus answered, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"
63
At that the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further need have we of witnesses?
64
You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as deserving to die.
65
Some began to spit on him. They blindfolded him and struck him and said to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards greeted him with blows.
See also Matthew 26:57-68 and Luke 22:66-67.
(John 18:19-24 gives a short account of Christ's appearance before Annas, the retired High Priest but gives
no account of his appearance before Caiaphas, the current High Priest, except to say he was taken there.)
Mark does not mention Caiaphas by name, but Matthew's account does. John, though he gives no account of what went on when Jesus appeared before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish council) - possibly because it was already known from the synoptic Gospels - does also name the High Priest as Caiaphas. In fact we know from other non-Christian sources that Caiaphas had been appointed High Priest in 18 AD by Valerius Gratus, Roman governor of Judaea before Pilate, and that he was High Priest until 36 AD.
John tells us that Jesus was taken first before Annas, the former High Priest and father-in-law of Caiaphas. Annas had been appointed by the governor Quirinius in 6 AD and remained High Priest until he was deposed by Valerius Gratus in 15 AD. It will thus be seen that the appointment of High Priest was a political appointment made by the Romans. The High Priiest and the priestly families would not wish to do anything to upset their Roman masters. Also the Romans found this arangement to their advantage. These factors must be born in mind as we consider these and subsequent Stations.
We noted that although the witnesses did not agree in their testimony, the chief priests and the Sanhedrin persisted in carrying on with the trial. Matthew tells us that it two witnesses who brought the last accusation that Jesus had said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it within three days. But even these two did not agree in the details they gave. They were obviously referring to an incident recorded by John that took place when Jesus visited Jerusalem at the Passover in the first year of his three-year ministry:
John2:19-21
19
Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."
20
The Jews said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?"
21
But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
It was clear to us that Caiaphas was not going to give up until he had Jesus condemned. We noted that John says of Caiaphas that it was he "who had counselled the Jews that it was better that one man should die rather than the people" (John 18:14). Caiaphas had been concerned at the way Jesus had been welcomed into the city at the beginning of the week ('Palm Sunday') and thought there was a danger of Jesus proclaiming himself openly as Messiah and leading a revolt against the Romans. Caiaphas was only too well aware how the Romans would deal with such a revolt (and he was proved right when the uprising of 66 AD was ruthlessly put down by the Romans over six years. During that time, Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 AD and a large part of the Jewish population was either enslaved or massacred). He felt that to keep the peace and save his own political skin Jesus had to die.
One of our group wondered why Jesus made no reply to all these accusations, but did reply to Caiaphas' question. But the point was that there was simply no reply to make to accusations that clearly contradicted one another - they made their own reply!. But when Caiaphas asked him straight: "Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?", what else could Jesus do but answer the truth? We noted that his answer, as recorded by Mark, began with "I AM", the divine name by which God had made himself known to Moses from the burning bush. He then added: "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.", alluding to
Psalm 110 (109):1
The LORD says to you, my lord: 'Take your throne at my righthand, while I make your enemies your footstool.'
"You, my lord" referred to King David, but Jesus is applying it to himself as the Davidic Messiah.
Daniel 7:13
As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven.
The title 'Son of Man' was the most characteristic way in which Jesus referred to himself during his ministry.
Caiaphas had got what he wanted and without waiting any longer tore his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. Given this lead, the majoriity of the Sanhedrin agreed Jesus deserved to die. They were, however, forbidden by Roman law to carry out executions; only the Romans could do that.
One of our group drew our attention to the fact that although tearing one's clothing was a traditional sign of mourning or grief among the Jews, the High Priest was forbidden to tear his own clothing: "He who is High Priest among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the special vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his garments" (Leviticus 21:10). In his determination to get Jesus condemened, Caiaphas is prepared to ignore that injunction.
The Fourth Station: Jesus is denied by Peter.
Mark 14:66-72
66
While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the high priest's maids came along.
67
Seeing Peter warming himself, she looked intently at him and said, "You too were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
68
But he denied it saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." So he went out into the outer court. Then the cock crowed.
69
The maid saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
70
Once again he denied it. A little later the bystanders said to Peter once more, "Surely you are one of them; for you too are a Galilean."
71
He began to curse and to swear, "I do not know this man about whom you are talking."
72
And immediately a cock crowed a second time. Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times." He broke down and wept.
See also Matthew 26:30-35, Luke 22:54-62 and John 18:15-18, 25-27.
It was asked what Peter was doing in the courtyard. As he so obviously stood out as somehow different, why had he been allowed to enter? The answer is given in John's account:
John 18:15-16:
15
Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.
16
But Peter stood at the gate outside. So theother disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.
The other disciple is John. We do not know in what capacity John was known to the High Priest. John's Gospel, however, does show good knowledge of Jewish Temple ritual. Both John and Peter had been with Jesus in Gesthemane when he was arrested. Peter probably followed because he had told Jesus that he would not abandon him and not deny him. Peter's nerve held at first, but when actually questioned, he failed. Was his lack of resolve because he had not kept awake and prayed during Jesus' agony in the garden?
One of our group wondered if Peter's tears were tears of frustration: Jesus was letting things happen to him and dong nothing about it. But, it was pointed out that Peter did not know what was going on in the Sanhedrin. It was generally felt that Peter's tears were those of deep remorse: he had been so determined to follow Jesus and not deny him; he had failed - he had betrayed his master. He was bitterly ashamed.
Indeed, there was sympathy felt for Peter. One of our group reminded us that the week had begun on a high point for the apostles with Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem. There would have been a feeling of anticipation and excitement. As they began the Passover meal on the the first evening of Passover, the apostles must have been feeling excited. Then tihngs started to happen which puzzled them: when Jesus broke the bread as they were about to eat the main meal of bread and lamb, he had told them the bread was his body broken for them and for all people; at the end of the meal when he had blessed the Cup of Blessing, he had told them that they were drinking his blood of the new covenant (but Jews are forbidden to drink blood!); after they had sung the great Hallel, instead of drinking the Cup of Consummation to conclude the ritual, Jesus had gone out into the garden of Gesthemane - the ritual meal had not been completed! The apostles must have been very confused and puzzled by this time and then they see Jesus arrested and taken off. One can only imagine the mixed feelings of dismay and bewilderment the apostles must have been feeling. And Peter had failed his Lord. No wonder he wept.
It was noticed that both Mark and Matthew place Peter's denials after their accounts of the trial before the Sanhedrin, whereas Luke places it before. John recounts the first denial before he tells of Jesus appearing before Annas, and the second two denials as happning after Jesus had been taken to Caiaphas and before Caiaphas had Jesus taken before Pilate. The simple explanation is that Peter's denials were taking place at the same time as Jesus was appearing first before Annas and then before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.
For next week
Those present were reminded that next week shall
be considering Stations 5 & 6: Jesus is judged by Pilate; Jesus is scourged and crowned with thorns. It was
suggested that members look at the scriptural passages concerned beforehand.
Conclusion
(Payer of St Alphonsus Liguori)
I love you Jesus, my Love, above all things;
I repent with my whole heart for having offended you.
Never permit me to separate myself from you again.
Grant that I may love you always,
then do with me what you will.
Amen.
Our Lady - pray for us.
St Peter - pray for us.
Most of the scripture texts on this page are taken from the New American
Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms © 1991, 1986, 1970
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C.
