The Trial of the King

This morning, we pick back up in the heat of things in Mark 14:53-65 with the trial of the King of Kings. Let’s read that together. From this text, see two points: The Unjust Trial and The Ultimate Crime.

First, from verses 53-60, see the Unjust Trial. The mob arrested Jesus in the middle of the night and took him straight away to court. This court was called the Sanhedrin, a council of seventy leaders, selected from the priests, nobles, and lawyers. It was established on OT patterns like the judges and the Jerusalem court established by Jehoshaphat in 2 Chron. 19. These are the most influential and educated men of Jerusalem. They had memorized the OT law before they were twelve. They taught in the synagogues and tried cases every day. Yet the court they now call is not gathered to determine guilt or innocence. This court is assembled to provide legal cover for an assassination. This motive leads them to an unjust trial of the Messiah. Consider three ways that this trial is unjust.

First, the trial is unjust because of its timing. Verse 54 tells us that they assembled the whole council while Peter warmed himself by the fire, putting this trial in the early hours of the morning, long before the sun rose. This timing betrays the malpractice of the trial. The Mishnah (later Jewish tradition that was probably passed down from the Pharisees of Jesus’ day) says that capital cases are tried and concluded by day, and a conviction can only be passed down in daylight. These are wise rules. As your momma always told you, “Nothing good happens after midnight”, and we see that playing out in this text. Yet, the religious leaders cannot even be bothered by their own man-made rules at this point.

Second, this trial is unjust because of its testimony. Verse 56 says that the priests brought forward many witnesses, but they could not get them to agree. And, even the ones who made legitimate accusations, like telling of how Jesus taught that he would destroy the temple and raise it up in three days, could not even agree on the particulars. These false witnesses (and the whole court with them) were in direct violation of Deut. 19 and at risk of their own lives. Deut. 19 requires that a guilty verdict can only be passed on the testimony of two or three reliable witnesses. And, the task of a good judge, according to the OT, was not to find witnesses who would accuse, but to find witnesses who would tell the truth. The OT despises a false witness, so much so that Deut. 19 says that if a witness is found to be false, whatever punishment was due the accused should fall on the false witness. So, in this case, all of the false witnesses brought before the Sanhedrin should have been crucified. Yet, the Sanhedrin could not be bothered with their own rules, and worse yet, they could not be bothered with the law of God.

Third, this trial is unjust because of its throne. What authority do these leaders of Israel actually have? Yes, they could judge civil matters within the religious community. They could determine divorce cases and land line disputes. They could even adjudicate major cases that could not be decided by lower courts. But the question before this court is one of constitutionality. Jesus is before them because he claims to be the Messiah (as we will see). This is a claim to be the rightful heir to the throne of David. There is only one person authorized to judge that – the prophet of God. But, there hasn’t been a prophet in over 400 years, save two – John the Baptist and Jesus. And, these two witnesses testified of the same thing. John came to prepare the way for the Messiah, and Jesus, as the Messiah, revealed himself through signs and wonders. Even so, Jesus also has a technical, legal claim to the throne of David. He is, in fact, in the direct line of King David. He has more of a claim to the throne than the puppet king Herod who isn’t even Jewish. He has more of a claim than any of the men on the Sanhedrin. And yet, this court would condemn him for making a legitimate legal claim to his own throne.

That leads into my second point: the Ultimate Crime. Even with all of their schemes and their blatant subversion of law and regulation, the Sanhedrin still cannot convict Jesus of a crime. They have nothing, and if Jesus keeps his mouth shut, they have no reason to convict him. So, the high priest himself takes the podium, looks Jesus in the eye, and in a last-ditch effort, asks that sensational question: “Are you the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the Blessed?” This is a precise question. In his mind, he is not asking if Jesus is God. The kings of Israel were understood to be “sons of God” in the way that Adam was the son of God. They were men who were close to God in authority and relationship, like a son. 

In answering this, Jesus could have easily just said what he has many times before: “You have said it.” He could just continue to hold his tongue. Even if Jesus answered “yes, I am the Messiah” he might still get off. But here is the moment where it all turns. Jesus answers, in verse 62, “I am, and you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” This answer is the combination of two passages. The first is Psalms 110:1, which we read earlier. This was universally understood to be a Messianic Psalm. David was looking forward to a person he calls “My Lord”, someone greater than David – someone who would reign with God. So, Jesus first answers definitively, “yes, I am the Messiah.” But, then he goes further by combining Psalm 110 with Daniel 7:13-14. There, Daniel has a vision of the throne room of Heaven, where God, the Ancient of Days, is seated in judgment. Then, “one like a son of man” ascends in the clouds of heaven and takes a seat next to the Ancient of Days. This imagery pointed, not to an earthly son, but to a divine son. In the OT, the clouds of heaven always accompanied God, never an angel, never a human. Jesus was claiming equal authority with God and equal position with him as the divine Son.

We know this is the case because of how the high priest reacts. In verse 63, it says that he tore his garments and said, “What further witness do we need? You have heard his blasphemy.” Claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy, but claiming to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7 was. So, the priest calls for an immediate verdict (the law and regulations required the court to wait a day, by the way), and he got his verdict. Mark says that they all condemned him as deserving death for claiming to be equal to God.

In all of this, recognize some important implications. First, if you believe that Jesus was a good teacher or a misunderstood hippy, but he wasn’t the son of God, then you have to reckon with this trial. As CS Lewis has said, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. So, let’s say that Jesus was just a misunderstood teacher. If that is the case, why does he, here, claim to be a Divine Messiah? I mean, we put most people who claim to be God in the loony bin these days. Or, if he was a good teacher, then surely, he would not mislead people into believing he was the Messiah. He can’t be a good teacher and then lie about that. I’m sorry, but you can’t play nice with Jesus, claiming to like what he teaches, and then ignore what he says in his darkest hour. You have to either say you will have nothing of him, or you have to acknowledge him as Lord. But here’s the thing. You want to say he is a good teacher because he is. He taught truth in a way that no one had before him, and even today, the world is shaped by his teachings. So, if he is a good teacher, then what he says here is good, too – he is the Divine Messiah, and you should worship him as Lord.

Second, this may all seem like an unfortunate, tragic turn of events, but Jesus intended it all. As I said early, if he had not wanted this, Jesus could have gotten out of it, as he had already done many times before. Yet, this was the moment that God had foreordained, and Jesus was resolute in his will to be obedient to his Father in everything, even death on a cross. This moment lays bare the sinfulness and corruption of man, that even the elite of Israel could not obey the law and their own regulation, even when the case was open and shut. There were no true witnesses, save for Jesus. There was no royal claim, save for Jesus. And yet, they convicted him anyway. In the next few passages, they will do their worst, and Jesus will take it all, nail it to the cross, and rise again in victory.