Mark’s report that witnesses appeared against Jesus during this trial corresponds exactly to Old Testament and Jewish trial law.9 In contrast to Roman law, which focused on the examination of the accused, opposing and supporting witnesses were constitutive for Jewish judicial proceedings; the opposing witnesses played the role of district attorney. The statements of the witnesses had to agree in every detail; otherwise, they were irrelevant to the proceedings.
It is important to ask what accusation was brought against Jesus. Some things indicate that he was said to be “leading the people astray.” Just such an accusation had been made against him in the past (cf. John 7:12), and it appears in Jewish sources long after his death. The Babylonian Talmud reads, “[Jesus] practiced magic and led Israel astray” (b. Sotah 47a). The charge of leading astray would have included such things as disregard for the Law and acting against the temple. Jesus’ temple action in particular must have played a major role. People in Jerusalem were allergic to any kind of hostility to the temple. It secured the chief significance of the city as a pilgrimage center and the incomes of the population, especially of the local aristocracy, depended on pilgrims. In any case, according to Mark’s account Jesus’ saying about the temple played an important initial role in his trial. But apparently it was not easy for the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus in a clean judicial action for what he had said about the temple. The accusing witnesses did not agree, and the trial came to a standstill.
Messiah and Son of Man
In this situation Caiaphas opened a new segment in the proceedings. Because the witnesses did not agree, the court was short of proof. This may have moved the high priest to take a step that would compel a decision. Caiaphas asked Jesus, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61). There is no reason not to believe that the high priest asked such a question. It is meaningful and plausible. It refers to opinions and rumors that had long been circulating about Jesus. His dramatic entry into the city in particular must have given a new currency to this evaluation of his person. In addition, Caiaphas’s question follows on the temple action that had already been the subject of the proceedings, because that action had shown a sovereign and messianic character. So Caiaphas asks again about Jesus’ authority.
Jesus had already been questioned about his authority soon after the temple action by a delegation from the Council. He had not answered, but instead had posed a counter-question: “I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin? Answer me” (Mark 11:29-30). Jesus’ counter-question is apparently based on the assumption that a public confession is not appropriate in every situation. The fact that the delegation from the Sanhedrin turned the question aside and refused to take a stand showed in retrospect that his reticence had been justified.
Now Jesus is asked again about his authority, but this time in a new and different situation. He now stands before the assembled Council, before the high priest, Israel’s representative. The conclusive nature of this moment must have been perfectly clear to Jesus. Therefore he answers directly, and to the question whether he is the Messiah he confesses, “I am.”
Naturally, the reader of the gospel wonders how Jesus can accept in the presence of the Sanhedrin a title of authority that is as enigmatic as it can possibly be, and as subject to political misunderstanding, one he has long avoided in public and even forbidden his disciples to use openly10 and that he himself has hinted at only symbolically through his entry into the city and his action in the temple. The answer can only be that now, in the presence of the highest authority in Israel, the hour has come to speak openly. Now the possibility of misunderstanding and deliberate misinterpretation must be accepted. In any case, as Jesus had warded off all political interpretations of his entry into the city by riding on a donkey, so now before Caiaphas he guards against any false notion of his messianic character. Thus he is not content to say “I am.” His immediate delimitation of the messianic title was compelling and urgently necessary: “and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:62).
Whether Mark and his tradition repeat word for word what Jesus said at that time in this combination of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 is a question that may remain open. In any case, it seems to me certain that Jesus made his authority clear in the presence of Caiaphas—the same authority that had always been concealed in his speaking and acting, an authority that extended far beyond anything superficially messianic. For this purpose the phrase “Son of Man” (or “Human One” or “Human Being”) from Daniel 7 was ideally suited, for on the one hand this Son of Man is given “dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away” (Dan 7:14). On the other hand this Human One, as we have already seen in chapter 3 above, represents an ultimate human society that signifies the end to all dominion by force and violence.
Jesus had repeatedly used the “Son of Man” title during his public life.11 He employed it to express his lowliness—the Human One is the end of all societies built on force and violence—but he was also able, through it, to formulate his eschatological authority, to be given to him when the reign of God reaches its fulfillment. These two—lowliness and sovereignty—are not contradictory in Jesus’ eyes. That the Human One in Daniel 7 is a collective personality was likewise no problem at that time. Jesus sees himself as the embodiment, the representative of that collective, namely, the eschatological Israel.
Thus when Jesus speaks of himself before the Council as the Human One to come he is correcting an idea of the Messiah that could be misunderstood: he emphasizes his nonviolence. But at the same time he reveals his sovereignty. In that sovereignty, given him by God, he will become the judge of the Sanhedrin and of all Israel. It is not he who is on trial; it is the Sanhedrin itself that now stands in the dock, and Jesus has forced it to face this moment of decision.
However Jesus shaped what he said, Caiaphas understood. Two avenues were now open to him: believe in Jesus’ claims to sovereignty or be convinced that he has heard with his own ears a dreadful blasphemy against God. The high priest’s decision is clear. For him, confessing that Jesus would soon appear at the right hand of God as judge was nothing but damnable and blasphemous presumption. Now at last had been proved before many witnesses what had long been suspected: Jesus is a false prophet, a blasphemer, someone who was leading Israel astray.
Therefore Caiaphas immediately does what the Law demands of someone forced to listen to blasphemy: he tears his clothes,12 and he points the way to what the Torah prescribes for a false prophet, namely, that he be punished with death. Israel must remove the wickedness from its midst (Deut 13:2-6). The rest of the court joins in Caiaphas’s decision: “All of them condemned him as deserving death” (Mark 14:64). At this point Mark inserts two scenes: first, very briefly and succinctly, the mocking and mistreatment of Jesus after his affirmation (Mark 14:65), and then, at much greater length, Peter’s threefold denial (Mark 14:66-72). Then he takes up the thread of the Council’s action again.13 He now reports the end of the meeting—the Sanhedrin makes a formal decision to transfer Jesus to Pilate’s jurisdiction: “As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate” (Mark 15:1). A new proceeding against Jesus then immediately begins before Pilate, this time according to Roman law and with a Roman official presiding.