48<\/strong>. answered and said unto them<\/em> ] Those to whom He now spoke were, as we learn from St Luk 22:52<\/span>, some chief priests and elders and officers of the Temple guard, who had been apparently watching His capture.<\/p>\n a thief<\/em> ] Rather, a robber<\/strong> or bandit. See above, note on ch. Mar 11:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n And Jesus answered and said unto them<\/strong>,…. To the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, that came with the band and officers, as appears from Lu 22:52<\/span>. The Persic version reads, “to the multitude”:<\/p>\n are ye come out as against a thief, with swords and with staves, to take me<\/strong>? [See comments on Mt 26:55]<\/span>.<\/p>\n Against a robber <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Highway robbers like Barabbas were common and were often regarded as heroes. Jesus will be crucified between two robbers in the very place that Barabbas would have occupied. <\/P> <\/p>\n A thief. Rev., better, robber. See on Mt 26:55<\/span>, and Mr 11:17<\/span>. <\/P> 51, 52. The incident is related by Mark only. There is no means of knowing who the youth may have been. Conjecture has named Mark himself, John, James the Just, Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary, and St. Paul !<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And Jesus answered and said unto them,”<\/strong> (kai apokritheis ho lesous eipen autois) “And Jesus replied and said to them,” to the multitude specifically to the 1) Chief Priests, and 2) Scribes, and 3) Elders of Israel, Mar 14:10<\/span>; Mar 14:43<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) ”Are ye come out, as against a thief,”<\/strong> (hos epi lesten ekselthate) “Did you all really come out here, as if to pounce upon a violent man, thief, thug, bandit, or barbarian,” Mat 26:55<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “With swords and with staves to take me?”<\/strong> (meta machairon kai ksulon sullabein me) “With drawn swords and lifted (drawn back) clubs to arrest me?” Mar 14:47<\/span>; Luk 22:52<\/span>. He was here “numbered with,” or identified “with the transgressors,” by the Jewish religious order, Isa 53:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n (48) As against a thief.<\/strong>Better, as against a robber,<\/em> the word implying the bolder form of theft.<\/p>\n ‘And Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you come out as against a brigand, with swords and staves, to seize me? I was with you daily in the Temple teaching and you did not arrest me. But this is done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.” ’<\/p>\n Jesus clearly recognised members of the Temple police. So He charged those who were there to arrest Him with their hypocrisy. They were pretending to act justly but were quite aware that they were acting against the wishes of the people, otherwise why were they there in the darkness on Passover night rather than arresting Him in the temple?<\/p>\n He had two charges against them. Firstly that they had not dared to arrest Him by day in front of the crowds because they knew that the crowds were on His side. And secondly that, although He had taught peacefully in the Temple with no show of force, they now came with a large force as though He was a brigand. (Indeed he knew that that was the impression they were dishonestly trying to give to Pilate). There may have been in Jesus’ mind His own description of those who controlled the Temple trade as brigands (Mar 11:17<\/span>), with the thought, ‘do you really think that I am like them? They use force of arms but I do not’.<\/p>\n ‘I was with you daily in the Temple.’ The same men who had not dared to deny John the Baptiser before the crowd (Mar 11:32<\/span>) had also not dared to arrest Him during the day before the crowd, because they knew what the reaction of the crowd would be. But if they had been honest, and their case had been honest, it had given them ample opportunity for His arrest. It was not the Jews as a whole who were arresting Jesus, but their bigoted leaders and their supporters.<\/p>\n ‘Are you come out as against a brigand –(by night)?’ But now, with the crowds absent, they made a bold show in the darkness, and had come with a huge show of force as though He were a fierce brigand. And this in spite of the fact that He had never once offered resistance against them, but instead had peacefully preached among them in the Temple. Their whole behaviour was inconsistent and self-contradictory and demonstrated that they loved darkness in order to disguise what they did. They wanted it hid from men’s eyes.<\/p>\n And why such a large contingent, and the swords and staves? It was because in their hearts they were admitting that they were afraid. That had to mean that they knew that He was someone Who had revealed the power of God and that they somehow thought that with their superior physical force they could prevent interference from whatever powers He could use. Thus inwardly they were subconsciously admitting that they knew that the power of God was on His side. He was thus challenging them to recognise their own inner thoughts, thoughts which would only have been fortified by their first experience on approaching Him (Joh 18:4-8<\/span>). Jesus always gave men the opportunity to recognise that they were mistaken.<\/p>\n ‘But this is done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.’ But He knew in the end that they would not listen to Him for the Scriptures had already revealed that this would be the situation. Was he thinking of the words of the Psalmist which he had cited earlier, “They hate me without a cause — they devise deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land.”? (See Psa 35:19<\/span> – a Psalm of David, and thus suitable for a son of David. Compare also Psa 69:4<\/span> and see Joh 15:25<\/span>). Or did He have in mind the betrayal of the Suffering Servant by the leaders of the people (Isa 53:7-9<\/span>)?<\/p>\n XXVI<\/p>\n<\/p>\n JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Harmony, pages 186-196 and Mat 26:47-75<\/span><\/strong> ; Mat 26:59-75<\/span><\/strong> ; Mat 27:1-2<\/span><\/strong> ; Mar 14:48-15:1<\/span><\/strong> ; Luk 22:47-23:1<\/span><\/strong> ; Joh 18:2-28<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John’s Gospel that the Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch, was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed, themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities. This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John (Joh 18:2-14<\/span> ), certain facts are evidenced:<\/p>\n Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party, “received the Roman cohort,” usually about 600 men, under its own commanding officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.<\/p>\n They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard, besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin, then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:<\/p>\n First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even feared a mob rising in the night.<\/p>\n Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case. “We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he may be charged under their laws.” Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Act 21:30<\/span> ), and the intervention of Lysias, the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least, of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.<\/p>\n As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord’s earth life, his betrayal, his trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers. They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod, and from a lawyer’s viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases under a judicial construction of the Roman law.<\/p>\n Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher’s library. Do not waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.<\/p>\n The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr. Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This book of Greenleaf’s, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct parts:<\/p>\n The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs, but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer’s standpoint: “Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal evidence of the history of the case?” That part of the case he demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.<\/p>\n Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord’s life and death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a legal harmony of the testimony of the books.<\/p>\n He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf’s discussion of the various versions or translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.<\/p>\n Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of legal murder, pages 550-566.<\/p>\n Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.<\/p>\n The rest of Mr. Greenleaf’s book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M. Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr. Salvador’s argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf’s Kook makes it invaluable to a biblical student.<\/p>\n The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City, delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a lawyer’s standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr. Dupin.<\/p>\n In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer’s standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved, he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.<\/p>\n In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers, financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature, and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the Messiah.<\/p>\n All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race. The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal history, and nature as interpreted by true science.<\/p>\n Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal phases of the case), I commend Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah<\/em><\/strong> , a part of Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus’ Commentary on Matthew.<\/em><\/strong> It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name the books on the cross.<\/p>\n It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: “And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled naked” (Mar 14:51-52<\/span> ). Commentators have supposed that this young man was John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state thus: The upper room in which the Lord’s Supper was established was the house of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of Jesus.<\/p>\n It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher, preached a sermon on the passage (Mar 14:51<\/span> f), contending that the young man in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev 16<\/span> ). The sermon is a classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of that kind.<\/p>\n The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ, that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign: “When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want.” Christ submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” And that has gone down into history. Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them, “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss,” that the English government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and fleets for conquest.<\/p>\n The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luk 22:22<\/span> with Mat 26:51-55<\/span> ; Luk 22:51<\/span> ; Joh 18:10-11<\/span> ; Joh 18:24<\/span> . The explanation seems to be simple. In his charge (Mat 10<\/span> ), while he was alive and they were in his service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight, for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was then risen.<\/p>\n Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume self-support.<\/p>\n When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants. They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he, through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with what is called the “Herod party,” or “Roman party.” The patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.<\/p>\n Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law forbade a man’s being arrested at night that it forbade any trial of the accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, “I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them that have heard me.” So to conduct an examination of that kind at all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court; to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law concerning the administration of justice.<\/p>\n Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.<\/p>\n Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas. “Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together” (Joh 18:24<\/span> ; Mat 26:57<\/span> ). That constituted the Sanhedrin chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two twenty-four chief priests, twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three, but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans, they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, “We are not allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law.” That is, when Pilate had said to them, “Why do you not try him before your own law?” they said, “We are not permitted to put a man to death under our law.” That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the record says: “Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against Jesus.” They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two false witnesses, and here is what they testified: “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.’ “<\/p>\n That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into conflict with these people, he had said these words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” He was speaking of the temple of his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem) and in three days build another.<\/p>\n But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: “I adjure thee [which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of the judicial oath put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” To that Jesus responded.<\/p>\n Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.<\/p>\n I preached a sermon once from this text: “I adjure thee by the living God.” A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before. In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what “Messiah” meant that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was. After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and the facts of his life.<\/p>\n When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr. Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels, would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and called it blasphemy.<\/p>\n Another great violation of the law takes place: “What further need of witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?” And now they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death. Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and slap him, saying, “Prophesy who hit you.”<\/p>\n I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve the first one and the last one on the list.<\/p>\n That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning, or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit. There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.<\/p>\n The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried him he tried him ab initio, that is, “from the beginning,” and he did not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges presented were as follows: First, “he says that he himself is King”; the second is, “he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar”; and third, “he stirreth up the people,” which was one of the things that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: “He says he is King; he forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar,” interrupting the revenue coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and “he stirreth up the people.” We have had, then, the history of his case, so far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n QUESTIONS <\/strong> 1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John’s supplemental story?<\/p>\n 2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the arrest of Jesus?<\/p>\n 3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a prisoner?<\/p>\n 4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?<\/p>\n 5. What question do they answer?<\/p>\n 6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?<\/p>\n 7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists?<\/p>\n 8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?<\/p>\n 9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?<\/p>\n 10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mar 14:51-52<\/span> , and how do the commentators account for his presence and state on this occasion?<\/p>\n 11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?<\/p>\n 12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of our country?<\/p>\n 13. How do you reconcile Luk 22:22<\/span> with Mat 26:51-55<\/span> ; Luk 22:51<\/span> ; Joh 18:10-11<\/span> ; Joh 18:24<\/span> ?<\/p>\n 14. Upon Christ’s arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?<\/p>\n 15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the characteristics of this man?<\/p>\n 16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?<\/p>\n 17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.<\/p>\n 18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the limitations of its power under the Roman government?<\/p>\n 19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.<\/p>\n 20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what circumstances would their charge have been sustained?<\/p>\n 21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?<\/p>\n 22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?<\/p>\n 23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?<\/p>\n 24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him, what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal name of these offenses?<\/p>\n 25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?<\/p>\n Mar 14:48<\/span> . On this and the following verse vide<\/em> notes on Mt.<\/p>\n answered and said. See note on Deu 1:41, <\/p>\n against = upon. Greek. epi. App-104. <\/p>\n thief = robber, as in Mar 15:27. See note on Mat 26:55, <\/p>\n Are: 1Sa 24:14, 1Sa 24:15, 1Sa 26:18, Mat 26:55, Luk 22:52, Luk 22:53 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Joh 18:3 – Judas<\/p>\n 8<\/p>\n Jesus charged the mob with coming out against him as if he had been a thief who deserved to be taken with the unrefined weapons like clubs.<\/p>\n Jesus’ reply pointed out that He was not a dangerous criminal. The Sanhedrin’s action was totally unjustified and indefensible. Nevertheless it fulfilled prophecy. The Scriptures Jesus referred to included Isa 53:3; Isa 53:7-9; Isa 53:12 and Zec 13:7 (cf. Mar 14:27). Mar 14:50 documents the failure of the disciples, including Peter, and their abandonment of Jesus to preserve their own safety. The writer’s interest was the disciples’ action more than that of the mob.<\/p>\n And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and [with] staves to take me? 48. answered and said unto them ] Those to whom He now spoke were, as we learn from St Luk 22:52, some chief priests and elders and officers of the Temple guard, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 14:48”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"