G. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (22:66–71)
G. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (22:66–71)
The details of Jesus’ trial are not easy to piece together, for none of the Gospels gives a full account. But it seems clear that there were two main stages. First, there was a Jewish trial in which the chief priests had Jesus condemned according to Jewish law and tried to work out how best to get the Romans to execute him. Then a Roman trial followed in which the Jewish leaders prevailed on Pilate to sentence Jesus to crucifixion. The Jewish trial was itself in two or three stages. During the night there were informal examinations before Annas (as John tells us) and Caiaphas (who had some of the Sanhedrin with him). After daybreak came a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, probably an attempt to legitimate the decisions reached during the night. It was not lawful to conduct a trial on a capital charge at night; it was not even lawful to give the verdict at night after a trial which had been held during the day. But the Jewish hierarchy was in a hurry, so they rushed Jesus into an examination immediately after his arrest, night-time though it was. They followed this with a daytime meeting (which would give proceedings an air of legitimacy) in which the essentials of the night meeting were repeated and confirmed. Even so they came short of what was required, for a verdict of condemnation could not be given until the day after the trial (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:1). But they appear to have thought it was worth doing and all three Synoptists tell us of the day meeting (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1). Luke’s account is quite short. He omits the night-time trial and tells us only of Jesus’ appearance before the formal Sanhedrin.
66. Luke takes up the story at daybreak when a formal council could legally be assembled. He speaks of the Sanhedrin as the elders and goes on to particularize as both chief priests and scribes (or the Greek may indicate the three constituent parts of the Sanhedrin, as GNB, ‘the elders of the Jews, the chief priests, and the teachers of the Law’).
67–69. It is curious that no accusation is brought against the prisoner, nor are witnesses called. Instead the council invites Jesus to incriminate himself by telling them that he was the Messiah. But it is not as simple as that and Jesus says, If I tell you, you will not believe. His understanding of Messiahship was so different from theirs that he could not have given a simple ‘Yes’, while they would not have believed him had he made the claim he was entitled to make. He says further, if I ask you, you will not answer. On more than one occasion he had asked penetrating questions bearing on Messiahship, but they had failed to reply (20:3ff., 41ff.). If he now tried to bring out the real nature of Messiahship by questions, they would not answer, nor would they believe him if he simply affirmed his position. From now on indicates that a change is imminent. In something like the Johannine manner there is the thought that Jesus’ glory has begun (cf. John 12:23f.). His death, resurrection and ascension would change everything. And perhaps because discussion of Messiahship was futile Jesus switched to his favourite term, ‘Son of man’. The Son of man, he says, shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God. The right hand was the place of honour and sitting was the posture of rest. Thus the meaning is that, his saving work done, he would have the place of highest honour. The other Gospels speak of his being seated at the right hand of the power, but the addition of God in this Gospel would certainly make the expression more intelligible to Gentile readers.
70. These words aroused intense interest. All joined in the question that followed. Whereas before they had asked Jesus to say whether he was the Christ, now they ask the direct question, Are you the Son of God, then? As men are sometimes called sons of God, we must understand the definite article as important (‘the’ not ‘a’ Son of God). They are asking whether Jesus claims a special relationship to God. His reference to the Son of man and to the place of God’s right hand must have seemed to them a claim to a higher place than that which they understood the Messiah to occupy. For them a claim to be Messiah might be a mistake, but it was not blasphemy. But this was something different; it linked Jesus to deity. His reply means something like, ‘That is your word, not mine. I would not have put it like that, but since you have, I cannot deny it.’ Moffatt renders, ‘Certainly I am’, but this is too definite. I. Abrahams denies that the expression renders a rabbinic idiom,5 and we cannot take it as a common expression. But the context shows that it must be taken as an affirmative. The point is that Jesus’ understanding of the term differed from theirs; but he could not disown it and his answer recognizes this.
71. As far as the Sanhedrin was concerned that ended the matter. Its members were not interested in the qualifications Jesus would prefer to introduce or the way he understood the words. He had accepted them, or at least had not denied them. In their eyes that made him guilty. And since the words were his own they needed no further witness. They themselves had heard it. He was guilty. Schweizer remarks that, though legally correct, the Sanhedrin’s ‘rejection of Jesus is less honest and much more profound than that of the servants in the courtyard’.