Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 14:55
And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
55. And the chief priests ] St Mark passes over the details of the examination before Annas and the first commencement of insult and violence, recorded only by St John (Joh 18:19-24). He places us in the mansion of Caiaphas, whither our Lord was conducted across the courtyard, and where a more formal assembly of the council of the nation had met together.
sought for witness ] By the Law they were bound to secure the agreement of two witnesses on some specific charge. Before Annas an attempt had been made to entangle the Accused with insidious questions. A more formal character must now be given to the proceedings.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mar 14:55
All the council sought for witness against Jesus.
The Council-Jesus before the Jewish Council
The world, in its best moods, exalts justice; and, in its worst moods, defeats it. Everything depends on the mood for the time being. Multitudes on the first day of Holy Week strewed the way with their clothes for their king to ride over; it was their mood. Only five days later a mob, bearing lanterns and torches, sought Him as if He were a thief, and led Him a prisoner over that same highway. The mood had changed. Mob law prevailed.
I. The tribunal. No gathering of star chamber was ever more lawless.
1. The law decreed that no court should sit before sunrise; this trial followed immediately upon the midnight arrest-while Jerusalem was asleep.
2. The law required that anyone accused should have an advocate; here the Nazarene stood alone, with none to question in His behalf.
3. The law demanded that witnesses should be summoned for every prisoner; here no one was called to testify.
4. The judge of that court was Caiaphas, who had already declared the necessity of the death of Jesus, in order that the factions of the people might be harmonized.
5. Like a travesty reads the record: The chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put Him to death. Their aim was to establish guilt, not to find justice.
6. It was the law that no sentences of death should be passed upon the same day as the trial; yet, in spite of their subterfuge, declaring the sentence of death just after sunrise, it was on the same day, since the Jewish day began at evening.
II. The indictment. Full of flaws. Hopelessly confused. Even the testimony of bribed witnesses was too inconsistent to be of any use. The only seeming ground for a charge was a distortion of a saying in His earlier ministry concerning the destruction of the temple which He called His body, but which they declared was the pride of Jerusalem; but even this was no crime, as even His judges knew. Their case had failed. Their miserable charges were not sustained.
III. The prisoner. The one sinless Person among men. No enemy has ever found a flaw in His pure character. No charge, even of haste or imprudence, has ever been preferred. By His greatness and goodness, He throws all other human attainments into obscurity.
1. The best character is no protection against human hatred. The higher the character the more isolated it stands. The treatment accorded the Master will be meted out to His disciples. Persecution for righteousness sake is a natural outcome of being righteous.
2. The best character does not always command friendship in the time of trial. It is not an infallible mark of piety to be always surrounded with friends.
IV. The sentence. Death, that cry of assassins; death, cold and cruel, blanching in a moment the ruddiest face; death, the breaking down of human life; death, the guardian of the cross; this was the word they hissed out-He is guilty of death. To beckon such a death the laws of Moses and of the Romans were torn to shreds; mockery clothed itself in ermine; Pilate washed his guilty hands; and priests and rabble shouted themselves hoarse. (David O. Mears.)
The Sanhedrin
The Council of the Jews, commonly called the Sanhedrin, was composed of seventy-one persons. It consisted of three Courts or Houses,-the Sopherim, or Teachers of the Law, the College of the High Priest, and the house of the Elders. The president, or head of the Council, bore the title of Nasi, and was not necessarily the High Priest. In Num 11:16, we read that God commanded Moses to call together seventy of the Elders of Israel, and to put his spirit upon them. The Council was composed in like manner of seventy, to represent these Elders, chosen and ordained by Moses, and the seventy-first, the president, represented Moses; but as the Council was summoned by Moses, and not by Aaron, the High Priest was not necessarily the head of it. This president, or Nasi, was also called the Prince of Israel, and must be of the house of David, and the once became for many generations an inheritance of the family of Hillel, which descended from David. The First, or Upper House, was the House of the Lawyers, and it had originally supreme control of life and death. But when the Romans conquered Palestine, and converted Judea into a Roman Province, then this power was taken from them, and all those cases which had been tried by the Court of the Lawyers were heard by the Roman Prater. This House accordingly was practically dissolved; it had nothing to do, the sceptre was taken from it, and its lawgiver was divested of all power. The Second House was that of the Chief Priests; at the head of it sat the High Priest, and it was made up of the heads of the twenty-four priestly families and of the heads of the departments connected with the ministry in the Temple. The members all bore the title of Chief Priests (). They decided in all spiritual matters, as to faith and heresy. This House remained in full activity after the practical abrogation of the First, and thus the High Priest became the virtual head of the Jewish Council. The Third House was that of the Elders, and was made up of representatives of the great Jewish families and of Rabbis of note. They went by the name of the Elders, and continued to sit along with the Second House. (S. Baring Gould, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
55. And the chief priests and allthe council sought for witness against Jesus to put him todeathMatthew (Mt 26:59)says they “sought false witness.” They knew theycould find nothing valid; but having their Prisoner to bring beforePilate, they behooved to make a case.
and found nonenonethat would suit their purpose, or make a decent ground of chargebefore Pilate.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the chief priests, and all the council,…. Especially the former, who were of all most busy and active in this matter:
sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; on which they were determined, right or wrong; in this they went contrary to one of their own canons, which runs thus k:
“in pecuniary causes, they begin either for absolution, or condemnation; but in capital causes, they begin for absolution, and do not begin for condemnation.”
That is, they begun with such evidences as tended to acquit a man, and not with such as served to condemn him; whereas this court was only seeking for such evidence to begin with, that they might condemn Jesus to death:
and found none; that would answer their purpose;
[See comments on Mt 26:59].
k Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 4. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “And the chief priests and all the council,” (hoi de archiereis kai holon to sunedrion) “Then the chief priests and the whole council of the Sanhedrin,” the Jewish High Court.
2) “Sought for witnesses against Jesus,” (ezetoun kata tou lesou marturian) “Searched for witnesses who would testify against Jesus,” Mat 26:59 asserts that the three parties of colluding, 1) chief priests, 2) elders, and 3) all the council sought false witnesses.
3) “To put Him to death; and found none.” (eis to thanatosai auton) “So that they might put Him to death,” (kai ouch heurishon) “And they found not a one.” not even one that was conclusive evidence, Mat 26:59; Psa 35:11-12.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. JESUS BEFORE THE COUNCIL 14:55-65
TEXT 14:55-65
Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not. For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. And not even so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy; what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 14:55-65
839.
Why were the chief priests and the whole council so determined to put Jesus to death?
840.
Just what was involved in the testimony of witnesses? Why were they unable to find witnesses?
841.
What was unequal about the testimony of the witnesses?
842.
Why were the authorities so opposed to Jesus? Please attempt to be specific.
843.
Read Joh. 2:19 and show how the words of Jesus were twisted to say what Jesus did not say. Cf. Mar. 13:2.
844.
Why the personal attempt on the part of the high priest to provoke a response from Jesus?
845.
Why did Jesus answer the second question but not the first one?
846.
What was the purpose of our Lord in speaking of the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power?
847.
What is suggested in the action of the high priest in tearing his clothes?
848.
Just what was the specific charge of the blasphemy?
849.
Are we to understand the members of the Sanhedrim spit upon Jesus?
850.
Are we to understand the members of the Sanhedrim spat upon Jesus? What was the cause of such intense hatred?
COMMENT
TIME.Early Friday morning, April 7, A.D. 30, between one and six oclock. This meeting took place before the dawn of day on Friday morning.
PLACE.The palace of Caiaphas, the high priest in Jerusalem. The exact location of the palace of Caiaphas is unknown, but it was probably not far from the temple.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Mat. 26:59-75. The trial (Mar. 14:55-65) is found in Luk. 22:63-71 and Joh. 18:19-24.
ORDER OF EVENTS.After the arrest, and its incidents: (1) Jesus was taken first to the house of Annas, ex-high priest (Joh. 18:13), (2) Next to the palace of Caiaphas, Peter and John following (Joh. 18:15). (3) Here was a preliminary examination before Caiaphas (Joh. 18:19-24. (4) The trial before the council, illegal because held at nightbefore three oclock the cock-crowing (Mat. 26:59-65. Mar. 14:55-64). (5) Peters three denials during the trial (Mat. 26:69-75. Mar. 14:66-72). (6) After the Sanhedrim had pronounced him guilty, it suspends its session till break of day. (7) During this interval Jesus is exposed to the insults of his enemies (Mat. 26:67-68. Mar. 14:65. Luk. 22:63-65). (8) At the dawn of day the Sanhedrim reassembles (Mat. 27:1. Mar. 15:1. Luk. 22:66). (9) After hearing Christs confession again, he is formally condemned to death for blasphemy (Luk. 22:66-71.) (10) He is bound, and sent to Pilate (Mar. 15:1).
OUTLINE.1. False Witness Against Christ. 2. The Lord bears Witness. 3. The Lord Condemned to Die.
ANALYSIS
I.
FALSE WITNESS AGAINST CHRIST, Mar. 14:55-59.
1.
False Testimony Sought. Mar. 14:15; Mat. 26:59.
2.
The False Witnesses fail to Agree. Mar. 14:56; Mat. 26:50; 1Pe. 3:16.
3.
The False Witness Concerning the Temple. Mar. 14:57-59; Mat. 26:51.
II.
THE LORD BEARS WITNESS, Mar. 14:60-62.
1.
The High Priest Examines Christ. Mar. 14:60; Mat. 26:52.
2.
The Silence of Christ. Mar. 14:61; Mat. 26:63; Isa. 53:7.
3.
The Great and Good Confession. Mar. 14:62; Mat. 26:64.
III.
THE LORD CONDEMNED TO DIE, Mar. 14:63-65.
1.
The High Priest Pronounces Judgment. Mar. 14:63; Mat. 26:65.
2.
The Sanhedrim Votes the Death of Christ. Mar. 14:64; Mat. 26:66.
3.
The Lord Abused and Insulted. Mar. 14:65; Mat. 26:67.
INTRODUCTION
I. THE COURT. The court convened to try Jesus Christ was the Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin. It consisted of chief priests, that is, the heads of the twenty-four priestly classes; scribes, that is, rabbis learned in the literature of the church; and elders, who were chosen from amongst the most influential of the laity. Jewish tradition puts the number of members at seventy-one. The high priest usually presided: the vice-president sat at his right hand. The other councilors were ranged in front of these two in the form of a semicircle. Two scribes or clerks attended, who on criminal trials registered the votes, one for acquittal, the other for condemnation.Abbott. The priests were there, whose greed and selfishness he had exposed; and, worse than all, the worldly, sceptical Sadducees, the most cruel and dangerous of opponents, whose empty sapience he had confuted,Farrar. The Sanhedrin had power to try those charged with capital offences, but it had no power to execute the sentence of death (Joh. 18:31).
II. THE TRIAL. The whole criminal procedure in the Pentateuch rests upon three principles: (1) publicity of the trial, (2) entire liberty of defence allowed to the accused, and (3) a guaranty against the dangers of testimony: one witness is no witness. There must be at least two or three who know the facts.M. Dupin. Throughout the whole course of the trial, the rules of Jewish law of procedure were grossly violated, and the accused was deprived of rights belonging even to the meanest citizen. He was arrested in the night, bound as a malefactor, beaten before his arraignment, and struck in open court during the trial. He was tried on a feast-day, and before sunrise. He was compelled to criminate himself, and this under an oath of solemn judicial adjuration; and he was sentenced on the same day of the conviction. In all these particulars the law was wholly disregarded.Prof. Greenleafs Trial of Jesus, in the Testimony of the Evangelists.
III. THE ACCUSATION. The crime for which Jesus was condemned before the Sanhedrin was his alleged blasphemy; i.e., an assumption of power and authority which belonged to Jehovah alone (Mat. 26:65). But when he was brought before Pilate they changed the accusation to one of treason against the Roman government, as the only one of which Pilate would take cognizance (Luk. 23:2).
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I. FALSE WITNESS AGAINST CHRIST.
Mar. 14:55. The chief priests, Annas and Caiaphas, the ex-high priest and the acting high priest, and the heads of the twenty-four courses. All the council. The priests just named and certain scribes and elders to the number of seventy-one (see Introduction) constituted the Sanhedrim, or council. Geikie says: In imitation of the traditional usages of the Sanhedrin, while it existed, the judges before whom Jesus was led sat, turbaned, on cushions or pillows, in Oriental fashion, with crossed legs, and unshod feet, in a half circle; Caiaphas, as high priest, in the center, and the chief or oldest, according to precedence, on each side. The prisoner was placed, standing before Caiaphas; at each end of the semicircle sat a scribe, to write out the sentence of acquittal or condemnation; some bailiffs, with cords and thongs, guarded the accused, while a few others stood behind, to call witnesses, and, at the close, to carry out the decision of the judges. Sought for witness. Not to ascertain the truth, but to destroy one whom they considered a personal enemy, was this trial conducted. Found one. It was necessary to find two who had been present at the same or a precisely similar offense, whatever it might be. The difficulty, then, was not that they found none, as the English Bible renders it, but, as the Greek words literally mean, they did not find (what they were seeking,) i.e., probably, two witnesses to one and the same act. It would have been strange indeed if no one could be found to testify at all; but it was not strange that they found it hard to obtain two concurrent witnesses to one and the same thing.Alexander.
Mar. 14:56. Many bare false witness. The charge against Jesus of declaring himself the Son of the God and so making himself equal with God (Joh. 10:33), was one which it was impossible to substantiate by any witnesses outside the immediate circle of Christs disciples, for his ministry had been one of singularly commingled boldness and cautionboldness in the truths he uttered, caution in the methods of his utterance. He never publicly proclaimed himself the Messiah. He forbade the evil spirits from announcing his character. Mar. 1:34. He received the confession of his disciples, but refused to permit them to repeat it to others. Mat. 16:20. Interrogated by the Jews whether he was the Christ, he had refused a direct reply, and had referred them to his works. Joh. 10:24-25. He had given the same response to the public questioning of Johns disciples. In most of his later ministry he had veiled his meaning in parables. Hence the witnesses were contradictory and failed to meet the demands of the law.
Mar. 14:57. There arose certain. At least two were found who were willing to give a distorted version of something Christ had said over two years before.
Mar. 14:58. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple. The false witness consisted in giving that sense to his words which it appears by Mat. 27:63 they knew they did not bear. There is perhaps a trace, in the different reports of Matthew and Mark, of the discrepancy between the witnesses. There is considerable difference between the words attributed to him here, and there. These witnesses falsely reported his words, and failed also to understand what he did say but gave a new version according to their understanding.
Mar. 14:59. Neither so did their witness agree. Their statements varied so much that there was not sufficient testimony on any one point to convict. Therefore this first plan failed.
II.
THE LORD BEARS WITNESS.
Mar. 14:60. The high priest stood up. Thus far, during all the wicked attempts to torture testimony against him the Lord had maintained unbroken silence. This was galling to the pride of Caiaphas, who saw that nothing remained but to force him, if possible, to criminate himself. In the midst. The high priest, leaving his official seat, came forward into the middle of the semi-circle, in which the members of the Sanhedrim were seated. The accused stood facing them, so that the high priest was then immediately side by side with our Lord. Answerest thou nothing? The question implies a long-continued silence, while witness after witness were uttering clumsy falsehoods. In the silence itself we may perhaps trace a deliberate fulfilment of Isa. 53:7. What is it which these witness? The first object of Caiphas was to draw out an answer to the allegations, which, as he well knew, would not suffice, as they then stood, for condemnation.
Mar. 14:61. But he held his peace. It was no part of his duty, as a defendant, to unravel the contradictions of his unprincipled accusers. Our Lord was silent; for in answering he must have opened to them the meaning of his words, which was not the work of this hour, nor fitting for that audience. Truth is never mute for want of arguments of defence, but sometimes silent, out of holy wisdom. Said unto him. I adjure thee (Mat. 26:63). This was the regular legal formula for administering oaths, and was binding on witnesses without their answering (Lev. 5:1). Art thou the Christ? Caiaphas became desperate, and adopted a resource which our own rules of evidence would declare most infamous, and which was also wholly adverse to the first principles of Mosaic jurisprudence, and the like of which occurs in no circumstance of Hebrew history. It was that of putting the prisoner upon his oath to answer questions framed for his own crimination.Kitto.
Mar. 14:62. And Jesus said, I am. His declaration of his divine Sonship constitutes Christs solemn testimony to himself, uttered at the momentous crisis of his life, under the solemn sanction of an oath, in the course of judicial proceedings, in the presence of the highest council of the realm, in the far more sacred presence of God and his recording angels, at the peril of his life, and with a clear comprehension of the meaning which not only priests and people would attach to it, but with which it would be forever invested by humanity. If it had not been true it would have been blasphemy,Abbott. Ye shall see. The shall ye see is to the council, the representatives of the chosen people, so soon to be judged by him to whom all judgment is committedthe power in contrast to his present weaknesssitting, even as they now sat, to judge him; and the coming in the clouds of heaven (see Dan. 7:13) looks onward to the awful time of the end, when every eye shall see him.Alford. Let it be noted that this is the Lords first formal, public declaration of his divinity. He now offered up his life in attestation of his Messiahship and divine character.
III.
THE LORD CONDEMNED TO DIE.
Mar. 14:63. The high priest rent his clothes. The act was almost as much a formal sign of condemnation as the putting on of the black cap by an English judge.Plumptre. The practice of rending the clothes on occasions of supposed blasphemy was based on 2Ki. 18:37. Originally it was a natural outburst of intense grief, and was involuntary; but at a later period it became a mere form regulated by special rules. The rent made in the garment was from the neck downward, and about a span in length. The body dress and outer garment were left untouched.Lange. What need we any further witnesses? They had called but one true witness; his testimony they rejected; and yet on the strength of his testimony they were about to condemn him !
Mar. 14:64. Ye have heard the blasphemy. Blasphemy here denotes reproachful, irreverent, or insulting language concerning God, or any of his names or attributes. Such would be the making God to be only like a man. Hence, had Jesus not been the Messiah, what he said would have been blasphemy. What think ye? A formal putting of the question. And they all. It may therefore be inferred that none had been summoned who were known or suspected to favor our Lord, though they may have been called to the more formal council at daybreak. Condemned him. This formal condemnation was, as they imagined, according to the law (Lev. 24:16). Compare Deu. 18:20. The Sanhedrim was forbidden to investigate any capital crime during the night, and according to the Roman law a sentence pronounced before dawn was not valid. This test vote, however, they considered as settling the question.Schaff. The council now adjourned, to meet at daybreak, when they could legally pronounce the sentence. In the mean time occurred the maltreatment by his lawless enemies described in the next verse. The daybreak meeting, at which the sentence already pronounced was formally ratified, is described in Luk. 22:66-71. John only relates the examination before Annas; Matthew and Mark give the account of the packed and illegal meeting of the Sanhedrim before day, presided over by Caiaphas. Luke only gives the account of the ratification meeting of the Sanhedrim at the dawn of day. All the accounts must be studied in order to get the full account of the Jewish condemnation of the Lord.
Mar. 14:65. Began to spit on him. One under sentence of death was always, in these rough ages, the sport of mockery of his guards, and those in charge of Jesus, made worse than common by the example of the judges, vented their cruelty on him with the coarsest brutality. Their passions, indeed, intensified their bitterness, for they were fierce Jewish bigots.Geikie. To say unto him, Prophesy. He who claims to be chief of the prophets should now give us a specimen of his prophetic powers. He was blindfolded, so that they were putting his prophetic powers to a mock test. Compare these insults before the Jews, which alluded to his claims of Messiahship with the insults by the Romans, which alluded to his political claims.
FACT QUESTIONS 14:55-65
1038.
Please retrace carefully the three incidents leading to the trial of Jesus and the seven following.
1039.
How many chief priests in the council? From whence did they come?
1040.
Who were the scribes? the elders?
1041.
Who presided? How was the condemnation or acquittal recorded?
1042.
Show why each class in the Sanhedrim were adverse in their opinion of Jesus.
1043.
The whole criminal procedure in the Pentateuch rests upon three principleswhat were they?
1044.
Show at least four particulars in which throughout the course of his trial the rules of Jewish law were grossly violated.
1045.
What were the two accusations brought against Jesus?
1046.
Why did the council seek a witness?
1047.
The problem was not that they could not find witnesses but rather in the quality of the ones they foundexplain.
1048.
Why would it be almost impossible to substantiate the charge of Jesus declaring Himself to be the Son of God?
1049.
When had anyone heard Him say I will destroy this temple? Cf. Mat. 27:63.
1050.
The testimony of the witnesses was rejectedwhy?
1051.
Why did Caiaphas stand up in the midst of the council?
1052.
Show how Isa. 53:7 was fulfilled in the trial.
1053.
What did Caiaphas hope to do in any testimony Jesus would give?
1054.
Truth is never mute for want of arguments of defense, but sometimes silent out of___________ ___________.
1055.
In what manner did Caiaphas attempt to cause Christ to criminate Himself?
1056.
Please read Abbotts beautiful comment under Mar. 14:62. And Jesus said, I amgive three or four of the momentous circumstances attending this confession.
1057.
To whom did Jesus address the words Ye shall see? Why did He make such a stupendous prediction? Cf. Dan. 7:13.
1058.
What significance was there in the rent clothes of the high priest? How did the practice originate?
1059.
The claim of Jesus would have been indeed blasphemy except for one factwhat was it?
1060.
Who was called to this Council meeting? When was it held?
1061.
Read Lev. 24:16; Deu. 18:20 and show how the Council felt they had acted according to lawShow two particulars where they had not.
1062.
In what sense was a test vote taken?
1063.
Between the early morning meeting and daybreak what happened in the treatment of Jesus?
1064.
Who spit on Jesus?
1065.
Read Luk. 22:66-71 for the daybreak meeting.
1066.
When was Jesus tried before Annas?
1067.
How can we imagine the dignified religious elders of the supreme court spitting on anyone?
1068.
The Jews mocked Jesus for one claim, the Romans for anotherwhat were the claims? Were they true?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
‘Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to bring about his death, and did not find it. For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree together. And there stood up certain and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands’.” And not even so did their witness agree together.’
It is clear from this how tied they found their hands. They had to obtain external testimony from independent witnesses if they were to condemn Him. And try as they would the independent witness of two agreeing together was not forthcoming (Num 35:30; Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15). As witness after witness was introduced independently one after the other, none agreed with the other with regard to any charge that mattered. That they were false witnesses does not mean that the Sanhedrin had put up false witnesses deliberately. They were false witnesses because what they testified about Jesus was, as Mark knew, not wholly true. This is clear evidence that reasonably correct procedures were being followed, and had to be, because it was demanded by many of those present. Not all would allow justice to be swept aside. Note how there is a division into two by the phrase ‘their witness did not agree together’ in Mar 14:56 and its equivalent in Mar 14:59. These parallel the first two approaches to Peter in Mar 14:67-70.
Where the witnesses came from is an interesting question. The fact that they were available serves to demonstrate that the case had been at least partly prepared some time before. Or it may simply be that they had been hurriedly obtained from among those present and from among officials and servants of the High Priest.
We are only actually told one of the charges, seemingly one remembered by the person who provided the information about the examination (it could have been a member of the Sanhedrin, or an interested witness among others who attended the hearing such as disciples of the scribes). And that was that Jesus had said He would destroy the present Temple and in three days raise one up made without hands. Such a statement that He would destroy the temple would indeed probably have been looked on as blasphemy in itself, and the idea that He would destroy it and then rebuild it in three days could be seen as a Messianic claim made by someone claiming superhuman powers (compare 2Sa 7:13; Zec 6:12 which suggest that the Messiah will rebuild the Temple), something which if it could be demonstrated would interest Pilate greatly. But even here the witnesses could not agree on what exactly He said.
It is possible that Judas, having heard Jesus’ words in Mar 13:2, may have contributed to this charge, causing them to ask around as to whether anyone had heard Him say anything like this.
A statement fairly like this is in fact described to us in Joh 2:19. It was probably this, or something like it, that was being ‘remembered’. But as is clear from an examination of that statement Jesus did not there say that He would destroy the temple. And the witnesses could not agree what He did say. The idea, however, became lodged in some of their minds for they produced it against Him at the cross (Mar 15:29 compare Act 6:14).
By now the leading examiner, the High Priest, was getting increasingly impatient. Time was passing, morning was approaching, and they were getting nowhere. And he was especially furious because Jesus was standing there not defending Himself or admitting anything, and so not convicting Himself. It was unreasonable.
‘Sought witness.’ This would serve to confirm that this was preparation for a trial rather than the trial itself.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mar 14:55-65 . See on Mat 26:59-68 .
Mar 14:56 . . . .] and the testimonies were not alike [170] (consonant, agreeing). At least two witnesses had to agree together; Deu 17:6 ; Deu 19:15 ; Lightfoot, p. 658; Michaelis, Mos. R. 299; Saalschtz, p. 604. The is the simple: and . Many testified falsely and dissimilarly.
Mar 14:58 . ] we , on our part: the also which follows has corresponding emphasis.
] peculiar to Mark, but certainly (comp. on Mar 15:29 ) a later form of the tradition resulting from reflection (at variance with John’s own interpretation) as to the meaning of the utterance in Joh 2:19 , according to which there was found in that saying a reference to the new spiritual worship of God, which in a short time Christ should put in the place of the old temple-service. Comp. Act 6:14 . Matthew is here more simple and more original.
.] is an appositional more precise definition to . See van Hengel, Annotat. p. 55 ff. Comp. on Luk 23:32 .
Mar 14:59 . ] and not even thus (when they gave this statement) was their testimony consonant. The different witnesses must therefore have given utterance to not unimportant variations in details (not merely in their mode of apprehending the saying, as Schenkel would have it). It is plain from this that one witness was not heard in the presence of the other. Comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. 299, p. 97. Others, like Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, in opposition to linguistic usage and to the context (see Mar 14:56 ), hold that is here and at Mar 14:56 : sufficiens .
Mar 14:60 . Two questions, as at Mat 26:62 . If we assume only one, like the Vulgate, and take for , : answerest thou nothing to that, which , etc. (Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 120 f.; Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ewald, Bleek, and various others), it is true that the construction is not opposed to it (see on Matthew), but the address is less expressive of the anxiety and urgency that are here natural to the questioner. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 217 [E. T. 251], harshly suggests that “hearing” should be supplied before , .
Mar 14:61 . Well known parallelismus antitheticus , with emphasis. Inversely at Act 18:9 .
] , , God . Used absolutely thus only here in the N. T. The Sanctus benedictus of the Rabbins is well known (Schoettgen, ad Rom 9:5 ). The expression makes us feel the blasphemy , which would be involved in the affirmation. But it is this affirmation which the high priest wishes (hence the form of his question: Thou art the Messiah?), and Jesus gives it, but with what a majestic addition in this deep humiliation!
Mar 14:62 . The in Mat 26:64 , which is wanting in Mark, and which requires for what follows the figurative meaning, is characteristic and certainly original. On . . , comp. Dan 7:13 ( ); Rev 1:7 . That figurative meaning is, moreover, required in Mark by . ., although Keim finds in this interpretation “arbitrariness without measure.” Luke only, Luk 22:69 , while abbreviating and altering the saying, presents the literal meaning.
Mar 14:63 . ] a more accurate statement, in accordance with the custom of rending the garments, than the general in Mat 26:65 ; see in loc. People of rank wore two under-garments (Winer, Realw. ); hence .
Mar 14:64 . . . .] they condemned Him, to be guilty of death [171] On . with an infinitive, comp. Herod, vi. 85, ix. 93; Xen. Hier. vii. 10.
Mar 14:65 . ] when the “guilty!” had heen uttered. A vivid representation of the sequel.
] comp. previously , hence: some of the Sanhedrists . The servants, i.e. the servants of the court, follow afterwards.
] usually: who struck thee, according to the amplifying narratives of Matthew and Luke; Mark, however, does not say this, but generally: prophesy! which as Messiah thou must be able to do! They wish to bring Him to prophesy by the ! The narrative of Mark, regarded as an abbreviation (Holtzmann), would be a singularity without motive. Matthew and Luke followed another tradition. The veiling of the face must, according to Mark, be considered merely as mocking mummery .
And after some of the Sanhedrists had thus mocked and maltreated Him, the servants received Him with strokes of the rod . To them He was delivered for custody until further orders. This is the meaning according to the reading (see the critical remarks). On the explanation of the reading , they struck Him , see Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 138. As to , see on Mat 26:67 The dative denotes the form, the accompanying circumstances, with which on the part of the servants the took place. Bernhardy, p. 100 f. Comp. the Latin accipere aliquem verberibus (Cic. Tusc. ii. 14. 34).
[170] It is not to be accented , as in Homer, but , as with the Attic and later writers. See Fritzsche in loc. ; Bentley, ad Menandr. fragm. , p. 533, ed. Meinek.; Brunck, ad Arist. Plut. 1113; Lipsius, grammat. Unters. p. 24.
[171] This was the result, which was already from the outset a settled point with the court, and to the bringing about of which the judicial procedure had merely to lend the form of legality. The defence of the procedure in Saalschtz, Mos. R. p. 623 ff., only amounts to a pitiful semblance of right. Against the fact as it stood, that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, they had no law; this claim, therefore, was brought into the sphere of the spiritual tribunal under the title of blasphemy, and before the Roman tribunal under that of high treason. And into the question as to the ground and truth of the claim although in the confession of Jesus there was implied the exceptio veritatis they prudently did not enter at all.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
Ver. 55. See Trapp on “ Mat 26:59 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mar 14:55-65 . The trial and condemnation .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mar 14:55 . : Mt. has , justly so characterised, because the Sanhedrists wanted evidence for a foregone conclusion: evidence that would justify a sentence of death.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mark
THE CONDEMNATION WHICH CONDEMNS THE JUDGES
Mar 14:55 – Mar 14:65
Mark brings out three stages in our Lord’s trial by the Jewish authorities-their vain attempts to find evidence against Him, which were met by His silence; His own majestic witness to Himself, which was met by a unanimous shriek of condemnation; and the rude mockery of the underlings. The other Evangelists, especially John, supply many illuminative details; but the essentials are here. It is only in criticising the Gospels that a summary and a fuller narrative are dealt with as contradictory. These three stages naturally divide this paragraph.
I. The judges with evil thoughts, the false witnesses, and the silent Christ Mar 14:55.
The single specimen of the worthless evidence given may be either a piece of misunderstanding or of malicious twisting of innocent words; nor can we decide whether the witnesses contradicted one another or each himself. The former is the more probable, as the fundamental principle of the Jewish law of evidence ‘two or three witnesses’ would, in that case, rule out the testimony. The saying which they garble meant the very opposite of what they made it mean. It represented Jesus as the restorer of that which Israel should destroy. It referred to His body which is the true Temple; but the symbolic temple ‘made with hands’ is so inseparably connected with the real, that the fate of the one determines that of the other. Strangely significant, therefore, is it, that the rulers heard again, though distorted, at that moment when they were on their trial, the far-reaching sentence, which might have taught them that in slaying Jesus they were throwing down the Temple and all which centred in it, and that by His resurrection, His own act, He would build up again a new polity, which yet was but the old transfigured, even ‘the Church, which is His body.’ His work destroys nothing but ‘the works of the devil.’ He is the restorer of the divine ordinances and gifts which men destroy, and His death and resurrection bring back in nobler form all the good things lost by sin, ‘the desolations of many generations.’ The history of all subsequent attacks on Christ is mirrored here. The foregone conclusion, the evidence sought as an after-thought to give a colourable pretext, the material found by twisting His teaching, the blindness which accuses Him of destroying what He restores, and fancies itself as preserving what it is destroying, have all reappeared over and over again.
Our Lord’s silence is not only that of meekness, ‘as a sheep before her shearers is dumb.’ It is the silence of innocence, and, if we may use the word concerning Him, of scorn. He will not defend Himself to such judges, nor stoop to repel evidence which they knew to be worthless. But there is also something very solemn and judicial in His locked lips. They had ever been ready to open in words of loving wisdom; but now they are fast closed, and this is the penalty for despising, that He ceases to speak. Deaf ears make a dumb Christ, What will happen when Jesus and His judges change places, as they will one day do? When He says to each, ‘Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these, thy sins, witness against thee?’ each will be silent with the consciousness of guilt and of just condemnation by His all-knowing justice.
II. Christ’s majestic witness to Himself received with a shriek of condemnation.
Sham reverence, feigned ignorance, affected wish for information, the false show of judicial impartiality, and other lies and vices not a few, are condensed in the question; and the fact that the judge had to ask it and hear the answer, is an instance of a divine purpose working through evil men, and compelling reluctant lips to speak words the meaning and bearing of which they little know. Jesus could not leave such a challenge unanswered. Silence then would have been abandonment of His claims. It was fitting that the representatives of the nation should, at that decisive moment, hear Him declare Himself Messiah. It was not fitting that He should be condemned on any other ground. In that answer, and its reception by the council, the nation’s rejection of Jesus is, as it were, focused and compressed. This was the end of centuries of training by miracle, prophet and psalmist-the saddest instance in man’s long, sad history of his awful power to frustrate God’s patient educating! Our Lord’s majestic ‘I am,’ in one word answers both parts of the question, and then passes on, with strange calm and dignity, to point onwards to the time when the criminal will be the judge, and the judges will stand at His bar. ‘The Son of Man,’ His ordinary designation of Himself, implies His true manhood, and His representative character, as perfect man, or, to use modern language, the ‘realised ideal’ of humanity. In the present connection, its employment in the same sentence as His assertion that He is the Son of God goes deep into the mystery of His twofold nature, and declares that His manhood had a supernatural origin and wielded divine prerogatives. Accordingly there follows the explicit prediction of His assumption of the highest of these after His death. The Cross was as plain to Him as ever; but beyond it gleamed the crown and the throne. He anticipates ‘sitting on the right hand of power,’ which implies repose, enthronement, judicature, investiture with omnipotence, and administration of the universe. He anticipates ‘coming in the clouds of heaven,’ which distinctly claims to be the future Judge of the world. His hearers could scarcely fail to discern the reference to Daniel’s prophecy.
Was ever the irony of history more pungently exemplified than in an Annas and Caiaphas holding up hands of horror at the ‘blasphemies’ of Jesus? They rightly took His words to mean more than the claim of Messiahship as popularly understood. To say that He was the Christ was not ‘blasphemy,’ but a claim demanding examination; but to say that He, the Son of Man, was Son of God and supreme Judge was so, according to their canons. How unconsciously the exclamation, ‘What need we further witnesses?’ betrays the purpose for which the witnesses had been sought, as being simply His condemnation! They were ‘needed’ to compass His death, which the council now gleefully feels to be secured. So with precipitate unanimity they vote. And this was Israel’s welcome to their King, and the outcome of all their history! And it was the destruction of the national life. That howl of condemnation pronounced sentence on themselves and on the whole order of which they were the heads. The prisoner’s eyes alone saw then what we and all men may see now-the handwriting on the wall of the high priest’s palace: ‘Weighed in the balance, and found wanting.’
III. The savage mockers and the patient Christ Mar 14:65.
It was not an ignorant mob who thus answered His claims, but the leaders and teachers-the crme de la crme of the nation. A wild beast lurks below the Pharisee’s long robes and phylacteries; and the more that men have changed a living belief in religion for a formal profession, the more fiercely antagonistic are they to every attempt to realise its precepts and hopes. The ‘religious’ men who mock Jesus in the name of traditional religion are by no means an extinct species. It is of little use to shudder at the blind cruelty of dead scribes and priests. Let us rather remember that the seeds of their sins are in us all, and take care to check their growth. What a volcano of hellish passion bursts out here! Spitting expresses disgust; blinding and asking for the names of the smiters is a clumsy attempt at wit and ridicule; buffeting is the last unrestrained form of hate and malice. The world has always paid its teachers and benefactors in such coin; but all other examples pale before this saddest, transcendent instance. Love is repaid by hate; a whole nation is blind to supreme and unspotted goodness; teachers steeped in ‘law and prophets’ cannot see Him of and for whom law and prophets witnessed and were, when He stands before them. The sin of sins is the failure to recognise Jesus for what He is. His person and claims are the touchstone which tries every beholder of what sort He is.
How wonderful the silent patience of Jesus! He withholds not His face ‘from shame and spitting.’ He gives ‘His back to the smiters.’ Meek endurance and passive submission are not all which we have to behold there. This is more than an uncomplaining martyr. This is the sacrifice for the world’s sin; and His bearing of all that men can inflict is more than heroism. It is redeeming love. His sad, loving eyes, wide open below their bandage, saw and pitied each rude smiter, even as He sees us all. They were and are eyes of infinite tenderness, ready to beam forgiveness; but they were and are the eyes of the Judge, who sees and repays His foes, as those who smite Him will one day find out.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
all the = the whole.
council = Sanhedrin.
sought for witness against = were seeking, 7c. This was contrary to their rule: “In judgments against the life of any man, they begin first to transact about quitting the party who is tried, and they begin not with those things which make for his condemnation”. Sanhedr. cap. 4 (cited by Lightfoot, Pitman’s ed., xi. 442) See the new edition of The Babylonian Talmud, vol. viii, p. 100. N. Talmud Pub. Co., N. Y., USA.
against. Greek. kata. App-104. As in verses: Mar 14:56, Mar 14:57.
found none = did not (App-105) find [any].
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
sought: 1Ki 21:10, 1Ki 21:13, Psa 27:12, Psa 35:11, Mat 26:59, Mat 26:60, Act 6:11-13, Act 24:1-13
and found: Dan 6:4, 1Pe 3:16-18
Reciprocal: Deu 19:16 – a false witness Mat 5:22 – the council Mat 27:22 – What Luk 22:63 – the men Luk 23:2 – forbidding Joh 18:21 – ask Jam 3:6 – a world
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
And found none means they could not find anyone who was prepared to testify as they desired. They wanted to get some person to affirm some word or act of Jesus on which they could secure the death sentence.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 14:55-59. And all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death Which they were determined to do. They had seized him as a malefactor; and now they had him, they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge: but they sought for witnesses against him. They artfully sifted some by sly interrogatories, offered bribes to others to prevail on them to accuse him, and endeavoured by threats to compel other, to do it. The chief priests and elders were, by the law, intrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses, Deu 19:16, yet they were now ringleaders in a crime that tended to the overthrow of all justice. Deplorable is the condition of a country, when those that should be the conservators of peace and equity are the corrupters of both! And found none What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime! Their witness, their evidences, agreed not together So also the Vulgate, Convenientia testimonia non erant. But the Greek words, , which, literally rendered, are, were not equal, are understood by many to signify, Not equal to the charge of a capital crime. So Dr. Hammond; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded; no, not by the utmost stretch of their law. Dr. Campbell, who considers the phrase in the same light, renders it, Their testimonies were insufficient; observing, On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, we ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing in the whole narrative that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the gospels the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Matthew and Mark, one saying, I will rebuild, another, I can rebuild; one adding, made with hands, another omitting it; not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lords mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish; Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtlety, was no way disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted. The same expression is used in the 59th verse. See the note on Mat 26:59-61. There arose certain, and bare false witness There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among mankind fit tools to be used in it: so miserably depraved and vitiated is human nature! Saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple, &c. It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented were spoken by Christ at least three years before, (Joh 2:19.) Their going back so far to find matter for the charge was a glorious, though silent attestation, of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
JESUS CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN
Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. Then the high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and teaching. Jesus responded to Him, I spoke boldly to the world. I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know the things which I said. He, speaking these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Do you thus answer the high priest? Jesus responded to him, If I spoke wickedly, testify concerning the wickedness; but if truly, why do you smite Me? Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Evidently, Annas and Caiaphas had their tribunals in the same great quadrangular building standing on Mount Zion, and now visited by the thirty thousand pilgrims annually going to Jerusalem. Having first been arraigned at the tribunal of Annas, He is now, about day-dawn, led bound to the tribunal of Caiaphas. You see how the high priest endeavored to make Him confess, hoping to utilize His own testimony against Himself, as they had no witnesses to amount to anything, and thus condescended to a very cowardly stratagem, which even if he had succeeded, the law pronounces the weakest of all evidence. It was awfully barbaric for that officer to smite a prisoner in bonds. You see, Jesus vindicates Himself reminding the man of the criminal impropriety of this uncouth assault upon a defenseless prisoner illustrating the right of all His followers to vindicate themselves from false accusation, violence, and tyranny, and refuting the idea somewhat prevalent that we are never to advocate our rights and vindicate ourselves against the oppression of the wicked.
Luk 22:66. And when it was day, the eldership of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes were assembled, and led Him into the Sanhedrin. As they had been on His track, like bloodhounds, three years, eager to take, His life (but restrained by the fear of the people; and well they might be, because a bloody civil war would have broken out immediately), such is their fear of the people that they attack Him at midnight, aiming to secure the death-warrant and kill Him before day. In this they are disappointed and woefully disconcerted, being unable to convene the Sanhedrin till day dawn, though keeping couriers running at race-horse speed all night, (notifying and urging them up. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of the politico-ecclesiasticism, the successor of the eldership organized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, during their wilderness peregrinations.
Mar 14:55-59. And the high priest and all the Sanhedrin continued to seek testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and they found none. Matthew says false testimony. Of course, they preferred true testimony if they could get it; but as there was none, they were anxious to take any kind they could get. For many continued to testify falsely against Him, and their testimonies were not equal, i. e., they contradicted one another, which in law invalidates both, so that they are thrown out of court. And certain ones, rising up, falsely testified against Him, saying, We heard Him saying, That I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands. Indeed their testimony was not equal; i. e., they contradicted one another. Perhaps some of the witnesses gave it correctly; but you have only to look at Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple, and I will build it in three days, to see that the above witnesses were false, as they testified that He said, I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and build another, made without hands. By comparison, you see that these witnesses did not quote Him correctly, as their testimony would make it mean that great stone edifice standing on Mount Moriah; while He did not mean that at all, but the temple of His body. Why did He not correct them when so grossly misrepresenting Him? Because it would have done no good, as Satan was in them, and they were thirsting for His blood.
Mat 26:62-66. The high priest, standing up, said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What are they witnessing against Thee? And Jesus was silent. Under temptation, the better policy is, like Jesus, to keep silent. You should never speak while under severe provocation. The high priest, responding, said to Him, I assure Thee by the living God, that Thou mayest tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him, Thou sayest it. That is an Oriental form of affirmation. Here, you see, Jesus answers while under oath of affirmation, administered by the high priest. Hence you see His indirect approval appertaining to the civil oath of affirmation. Paul (1Th 5:23) administers a solemn oath to the Thessalonian saints to read his letter to all the members of the Church.
Moreover I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. The first clause of this wonderful prophecy of our Lord was fulfilled when they saw Him rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven from Mount Olivet; while the second clause, coming in the clouds of heaven, will be fulfilled when Jesus shall ride down on a cloud and receive all the kingdoms of this world (Dan 7:9-14) and reign forever. In this wonderful sentence there is not so much as a comma, yet those two clauses are separated by many centuries, the former being verified in a few days, and the latter still pending.
Then the high priest tore His robes, saying, That He blasphemed; what need of testimony have we yet? Behold, now , you have heard His blasphemy. What seems good to you? And they, responding, said, He is worthy of death. Mark says this verdict was unanimous, So here you see the issue of His prosecution before the Sanhedrin They unanimously condemned Him to die for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses. (Lev 24:16.) Thus you see, good and just laws become vehicles of tyranny and persecution when in the hands of bad men, and are no guarantee of fight and justice when the devil is in the administrators. Jesus died under the verdict of Divine law, and so did all the martyrs, there being no trouble about the law; but Satan was in the preachers and ruling elders. So it is this day. Some of the brightest saints that walk beneath the skies, have been excommunicated, while drunkards, libertines, blasphemers, and thieves have been retained without impeachment. Such was the case in the days of Luther and Wesley, and always will be so when Diabolus gets into the clergy and official laity.
Luk 22:63-65. And the men who had charge of Jesus began to mock Him, beating Him; and covering Him, continued to strike His face, and ask Him, saying, Prophesy, who is the one smiting thee? And blaspheming Him as to many other things, they continued to speak against Him. The truth of it is, Jesus had no trial, it was a mockery; to their infinite shame, barbarically abusing Him while a prisoner in chains, which is revolting to the very idea of civil, not to say ecclesiastical administration. Nicodemus certifies that Jewish law never condemned a man till he met his accusers face to face, and had a fair and impartial trial. Festus, the Roman proconsul, makes the same statement in reference to imperial law. Hence, Jesus was mobbed and outlawed. But did He not come into the world to die? Most assuredly; and He would have died to redeem the world from sin, death, and hell if neither Judas nor Caiphas had ever been born. Yet that is no apology for the diabolical treason, perfidy, and murder which they committed, overtly, without excuse.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
14:55 {14} And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
(14) Christ, who was so innocent that he could not be oppressed, not even by false witnesses, is at length condemned for impiety before the high priest for confessing God to be his father. This is so that we, who denied God and were indeed wicked, might be acquitted before God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Even though this hearing, or grand jury investigation, took place at night, the Sanhedrin found witnesses against Jesus. It seems that they had been planning their case for the prosecution carefully. However the witnesses, who testified separately in Jewish trials, contradicted each other. Consequently their testimony was useless (cf. Num 35:30; Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15).
"It is harder to agree on a consistent lie than to tell the simple truth." [Note: Cole, p. 226.]