The darkness of Gethsemane was suddenly illumined with the light of flickering torches. The silence of the garden was shattered by the rattle of swords, the gruff voices of men, and the tramp of marching feet. Judas Iscariot, remembering that Jesus and his disciples had often resorted to this place to pray, and come to deliver Jesus to his enemies, escorted by a column of Roman soldiers and several of the officers of the chief priests (John 18: 3)
In the dim light of the torches, it was difficult to distinguish any individual, so Judas had agreed in advance upon the signal. The man whom he would greet with the traditional greeting of a disciple for his master, a kiss upon the forehead, would be the man they sought ~ Mark 14:44.
The disciples were very much afraid, but they loved their Master far too much to allow him to be taken without a struggle. Peter, in his usual impetuous way, drew his sword and aimed a blow at the head of one of the group of soldiers -John 18: 1 O. He happened to be a servant of the high priest. Either because the light was bad or because his aim was poor, Peter missed his mark and struck the man's right ear. Jesus immediately saw Peter's plight. He was in danger of being struck to the ground by the Roman soldiers. This is implied in the words of Jesus as he restored the servant's ear: For all who draw the sword will die by the sword - Matthew 26:52
The soldiers led Jesus away to the court of Caiaphas, the high priest. On the way, they apparently stopped at the house of Annas, who may have lived near to the Mount of Olives -John 18:13. Annas was a former high priest who seems to have had a great deal of influence on the people of Jerusalem in that day. No doubt Caiaphas expected considerable popular opposition to the crucifixion of Jesus. He probably reasoned that it would do his cause no harm to bring the venerable Annas into the proceedings.
The trial before the Sanhedrin was irregular and illegal in every way, according to Jewish law.
The court could not meet at night, nor could it meet at any of the great feasts. When evidence was taken, witnesses were examined separately and their evidence, to be valid, must agree in every detail. Each individual member of the Sanhedrin must give his verdict separately, beginning with the youngest and going on to the eldest. If the verdict was a verdict of death, a night must elapse before it was carried out so that the court might have a chance to change its mind and its decision towards mercy.
All of these regulations were violated in the trial of Jesus. The Sanhedrin was not at all interested in administering justice. They had already cast their verdict: Jesus must die. Before they could persuade the Roman authorities to authorize his death, they had to discover some charge that was not only a violation of their own religious laws but, no less, a violation of the laws of Rome.
The Sanhedrin was unsuccessful in its efforts to find volunteer witnesses to substantiate the charges against Jesus -Mark 14: 55. The two witnesses who finally took the stand were evidently the hirelings of the court. Even these two could not agree in their testimony -Mark 14: 59. In all of the confusion, Jesus said nothing.
At last Caiaphas hit upon a master stroke. He had heard the common rumor that Jesus had been acclaimed the promised Messiah. IfCaiaphas could get Jesus to agree to this popular acclaim, his case would be made, for the Roman government was already disturbed by the numerous revolts that had recently occurred. Rome was well aware of the persistent hope of the Jews that, some day, a mighty deliverer would arrive to free them from foreign domination. So, Caiaphas clearly put the question: Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah? ~ Mark 14:61.
Up until that moment, Jesus had never made such a claim in so many words. By his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, a few days previously, he had dramatically lent his support to the claim, but the Sanhedrin needed something more specific than that. It was the purpose of Caiaphas to present Jesus with a dilemma. If he were to acknowledge the claim to messiahship, that would seal his doom. That was all the chief priests need to achieve their murderous intentions. If he were to remain silent, the news of his silence would soon resound throughout Jerusalem, and he would be denounced as a pretender.
With quiet deliberation, Jesus frankly acknowledged the claim, using the language of the Old Testament to state it -language with which the members of the Sanhedrin were all well acquainted ~ Mark 14:62.
In a gesture of pretended anger, Caiaphas tore his clothing. The purpose of the trial had been fulfilled. They had the evidence they needed for the Roman court and for their own court. In the eyes of Rome, Jesus could be held guilty of blasphemy. It was a great hour for the Sanhedrin. Long had they waited for it. In a fit of delirium, they spat on Jesus and struck him and mockingly called on him, as a prophet, to give them a sample of his prophecies ~ Mark 14:65.
By the time the band of soldiers had arrived at the house of Caiaphas with Jesus, Peter had recovered from his earlier panic and had decided to go along with the group ~ Mark 14:54. He was not admitted to the room where Jesus was put on trial. He remained in an outer court with the servants and the soldiers. The night was cold an they sat before an open fire. Suddenly, a servant girl began to examine Peter's face in the light of the flickering flame and to take note of his Galilean accent as he engaged in idle talk with the soldiers. You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus ~ Mark 14:67.
Again, fear gripped the heart of Peter, and saying, I don't know or understand what you're talking about ~ Mark 14:68, he left the room and went out on the porch.
The sound of a rooster crowing in the night was grim reminder to Peter of the words of Jesus a few hours earlier. Would his Master's words come true? Would he really deny Jesus over and over again? As if to indicate his determination to face up to any further temptation of the sort, it appears that Peter deliberately went back to join the servants and the soldiers. Once more a servant girl eyed him. As before, convinced that Peter was a follower of Jesus, she challenged him.
Peter was not as strong as he had supposed. He flatly denied this second accusation. When others around him brought a similar claim, Peter, for the third time, denied his relationship to Jesus and went on to call down curses on himself; and he swore to them, I don't know this man you're talking about ~ Mark 14:71.
There is no doubt that Peter's love for Jesus never failed; it was his courage that failed. His conduct, surely, was inexcusable but it was not unforgivable. The redeeming feature about the story is that Peter did not, for a moment, seek to justify himself. As soon as he had denied his Lord, his heart became heavy, and he burst into tears ~ Mark 14:72.
The Sanhedrin lost no time presenting their case to the Roman authorities.
The trial at night had been an illegal and an informal one. To make it legal and formal, the Sanhedrin held a consultation at daybreak and agreed upon the formal charges that they would place against Jesus, before the Roman governor ~ Mark 15:1.
Throughout the pages of history, there are certain names that are always mentioned with contempt. Of no historical figure is this more true than of Pilate. He is the supreme example of a man who plainly say his duty but did not have the courage to pursue it. And yet, it must be conceded that the Roman procurator of Judea had a difficult role to fill that day when Jesus stood before him.
From bitter experience, Pilate had learned to fear the national fanaticism of the Jews. It is said that when he first took the office of procurator, he was determined to rule the Jewish people with an iron hand. He was told that they would not tolerate images of any kind, nor the display of banners on which were emblazoned the insignia of the emperor of Rome.
Bent on teaching the Jews a lesson, Pilate ordered that the banners of Rome be placed on the flagstaff of his citadel in Caesarea. When the Jews objected, he addressed them publicly and threatened them, then and there, with death if they did not give in. In answer, the Jews fell on their faces before the Roman solders and baring their necks, declared themselves ready to die rather than endure the violation of their laws. In desperation, Pilate had yielded.
That incident had been a severe test of Pilate's ability to handle the explosive Jewish situation. Yet, as he faced Jesus, Pilate perhaps realized that this case would be a still greater test of his skill and diplomacy. The charge, of course, was that Jesus looked upon himself as a king. That was treason, but was it true? To know exactly how matters stood, Pilate bluntly asked: Are you the king of the Jews? ~ Mark 15:2.
Jesus replied, Yes, it is as you say - Mark 15:2. In the Hebrew idiom that was not an evasion but a strongly affirmative answer and clearly meant, What you say is true.
The implications of the charge, however, were not true. The Jews sought to leave the impression that Jesus claimed to be an earthly sovereign, a temporal ruler, in opposition to the emperor of Rome. Doubtless, this is what Pilate construed Jesus' answer to mean until, apparently in a private conference, Jesus had an opportunity to explain the nature of his kingship more fully to Pilate - John 18:35-37.
In case Jesus' confession of kingship was not enough to convict him in Roman law, the Jews added further charges - Mark 15:3. To Pilate's surprise, Jesus had nothing more to say in his own defense.
In their accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, both Luke and John specifically record - Luke 23:4, John 18:38, that Pilate was fully convinced that Jesus was innocent of any crime in the sight of Roman law. To let Jesus go free, however, would be to incur the bitter enmity of the Jewish leaders. That could very well mean political suicide for Pilate. What, then, could he do? Suddenly a idea occurred to him.
Apparently it was the custom of the Roman governors in Judea, in deference to Jewish sentiment, to recognize the Passover season by granting release to a notorious Jewish prisoner, allowing the people themselves to name the individual who would thus be granted clemency. In fact, it appears that at that very moment a crowd had gathered at the palace gates demanding that this annual custom be observed and that a prisoner be released.
It so happened that there was at that time a well-known insurrectionists lying in prison. His name was Barabbas. Evidently, this was the man the crowd had chosen for release on that occasion. Their request played right into Pilate's hands. He would condemn Jesus and thus satisfy the Jewish leaders, and then release him in accordance with the annual custom and thus ease his own conscience. But, under great pressure from the chief priests, the crowd would not hear of any such proposal - Mark 15:11.
Hardly knowing what to do next, Pilate lamely asked the people, What shall I do, the, with the one you call the king o/the Jews? ~ Mark 15:12. What a question for a judge to ask the public! That was his decision, not theirs. In a wild frenzy they shouted, Crucify him! ~ Mark 15:13.
One of the saddest statements in this altogether sad story then follows: Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified -Mark 15:15. Matthew points out that Pilate then washed his hands of the whole affair ~ Matthew 27:24. Did he? Or ill he be held accountable on the day of judgment for failing to take his stand for truth as he clearly saw it? Indeed, he was already been judged throughout the centuries as a man who willfully did what was wrong because he did not have the courage to do what he knew was right.
There is a vital lesson in this incident for all of us as Christians. The follower of Christ dare not see evil having its way and do nothing about it. Whatever they cost to us personally, we must take side with God; we must stand up and be counted.