Caiaphas was the High Priest at that time. He
was a Jewish religious figure. The drama that took place had shifted from Gethsemane
to the courtyard of the High Priest. Shortly after the arrest, Jesus was
brought to the residence of Caiaphas. John 18:3 tells us that Caiaphas was the
son-in-law of Annas, the previous High Priest. Present at the scene were leading
representatives of the Sanhedrin, the council of 71 elders or the Jewish Supreme
Court. While the trial was on Jesus, Matthew
describes the presence of Peter following at a distance, facing a personal trial.
Would he, as he had so vehemently asserted that “Even if I had to die I will
not forsake You”, desert the Lord?
To start with, the Jewish authority was biased.
They were evidently not interested in pursuing the truth. Or else they would have
first obtained incriminating evidences, before putting Jesus on trial. Here we
get to see the intense level of animosity they had against Jesus. Their sole
intention was to convict Him and put Him to death. They had no conscience concerning
the truthfulness of the evidences, for all they wanted was to find enough evidence
to sentence Jesus to death, even if they were false. Clearly all they heard did
not warrant the death sentence. We are told that many false witnesses came
forward with false testimonies but were not enough to send Jesus to His death. Finally,
two witnesses came forward with testimony that appeared like truth, even that
was a distortion of what Jesus had actually said. They accused Jesus of saying that
He would personally destroy the Temple and rebuilt it in three days. We know
that Jesus was talking about His death and resurrection. The authority was trying
to get Him to respond to this accusation, but Jesus refused to be drawn in. So
He just kept silent.
As the drama heightened, the High Priest
posed the decisive question, putting Jesus under oath to tell the truth. He demanded
of Jesus, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God?” To that Jesus did
not deny. His answer was in the affirmative, but without giving them room to accuse
Him. He wanted the High Priest to take the responsibility for the statement
that He had made. Jesus then replied by talking about the reversal of roles in
the future. They might reject Him as the Messiah, but one day as foretold in Daniel,
they would see Him, the Son of Man, sitting in His glorious throne, endowed
with the ultimate authority to judge the nations. Horrified by such a suggestion,
the High Priest went into a tirade, and in extreme grief, He tore His robes and
charged Jesus with blasphemy. They were accusing Jesus of insulting God and arrogantly
claimed Himself to be God. They refused to accept that Jesus was speaking the
truth. They reckoned that what He said was sufficient to incriminate Him and no
further witness was required, only a death verdict could suffice. So they
pronounced the death sentence on Him. They then mocked Jesus and senselessly
and brutally demeaned the Messiah. Unwittingly they were fulfilling prophecies
that said the Christ would have to experience such humiliation. The spitting in
his face, the beating and the taunting were designed to discredit him and to show
how powerless He was in their hands. In all these, they had failed to see the
crux of the matter – it never was about power, it’s about God’s ultimate will
to save mankind.
This passage makes us question the intention
of Jesus’ accusers. Were they interested to find out the truth at all? What
about our present time? How do we speak the truth in an environment where truth
and lies, ambition and justice, are interpreted so differently? In the light of
such a situation, as witness of the truth of Jesus Christ, we must find a way to
demonstrate our loyalty to Him. We need to discern when we should speak and
when we should keep silent. This we need to learn from our Master.
No comments:
Post a Comment