And the chief priests and the whole sanhedrim sought testimony against Jesus to cause him to be put to death, and did not find [any].
The chief priests and the whole council meet with their minds already made up. Mark records a search for evidence that finds nothing — so why does this court choose the sentence first and hunt for the charge afterwards?
The sequence in this chapter is backwards. Arrest came first, then the hunt for something to accuse Him of.
In the scene that follows we see, in the chief priests and their council, how low religious flesh can sink. They had already decided to put Christ to death. So the trial that follows was not held to find out whether He had done anything worthy of death. It was a horrible device to cover murder with a show of justice. With malice in their hearts, they look not for the truth, but for witnesses "against Jesus to put Him to death."
The council had no shortage of volunteers. What it lacked was a case that would hold together — Jewish law required two or three witnesses to agree before a man could be condemned.
"And the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin sought for witness against Jesus to cause Him to be put to death; and found none." They found the will, but not the power; readiness to testify, but even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything, except in malice against Jesus. The witnesses had been bribed, and the judges were ready to condemn. Even so, everything failed. The testimony did not agree. As the law required, there must be two or three witnesses in agreement; but these did not agree.
The men on this council were the guardians of Israel's law. Their crime had been written about long before it happened.
Moreover, as a nation, Israel was especially guilty of false witness against the Messiah. The Spirit of Christ foreshadowed this sin in the prophets: "False witnesses rise up against me, and men who breathe out cruelty"; "they charged me with things I knew nothing about" (Ps. 27:12; Ps. 35:11, older wording). And so it turned out when in the fullness of time the Anointed One presented Himself to the chosen people. The mob did not do this. The religious leaders of the Jews looked for false witness against Jesus to put Him to death. In this they broke the very law they were appointed to enforce (Ex. 23:1).
The testimony kept breaking down. One writer sees a hand at work above the court.
There was no thought of an impartial trial. His judges were shamelessly looking for such witness as would let them pronounce the sentence of death on Him. But the power of God was at work behind the scenes, and every attempt to fasten the trumped-up charges on Him came to nothing. They made many efforts, and verse 58 gives us one sample. One accusation after another broke down as the false witnesses fell into confusion and contradicted one another. It seems as though God wrapped their normally sharp minds in a fog of confusion.
His enemies had every motive to expose a fault, and years in which to look.
Throughout His three and a half years of ministry the Saviour lived under the fierce glare of hostile criticism. He did not live apart from people, as John the Baptist did. The desert was not His home. He moved freely in and out among the people. All the facts of His life were therefore fully known. If His enemies could have found a single flaw in Him, how it would have delighted their evil hearts! But He was God's holy One. The Passover lamb had to be "without blemish". Only such a lamb could picture Him, who was holy in nature and stainless in all His ways. In the end His judge had to say, "I find no guilt in him" (John 19:6).
Since no accusation would stand, the court finally had to fall back on what Jesus Himself said.
The Lord's condemnation was a settled thing: the chief men of the Jews were only looking for the means to carry out injustice and murder under a show of law. They sought witness against Him to put Him to death; but it was false, and the witnesses did not agree together. Many were ready to give evidence, but their testimony counted for nothing: the Lord had to be condemned on His own witness. It is painful to look at the enmity of the human heart against the Lord, who had never done anything but good to men.
The scene carries a warning about religion that has kept its shape but lost its substance.
It is deeply instructive to see how a religion that has fallen away from God always leads the way in insulting God, persecuting His people, and bloodthirsty cruelty. Nothing sears the conscience, hardens the mind, and steels the heart like the form of godliness without the power.
- Verdict first. They settled the death sentence before the court sat. The trial was a device to cover murder with a show of justice.
- Witness wanted. They did not look for the truth. They looked for testimony to fit a verdict already chosen.
- Witness failed. They had the will but not the power. The law demanded agreeing witnesses, and theirs contradicted one another.
- Witness overruled. Every charge collapsed. God was at work behind the scenes, wrapping sharp minds in a fog.
- His own witness. They could not convict Him through other people, so they condemned Him on His own confession. Years of hostile watching never found one proven fault in Him.
For many bore false witness against him, and their testimony did not agree.
Jesus stands on trial at night, and the council has already settled on His death. They now hunt for evidence, and witness after witness fails to give it.
The search for witnesses did not come before the decision; it came after it. What looks like a courtroom is a cover.
In the scene that follows, the chief priests and their council show how low religious human nature can sink. They had already decided to put Christ to death. So the trial that follows was not an enquiry into whether He had done anything worthy of death. It was a horrible device to cover murder with a show of justice. With malice in their hearts, they seek not the truth, but witnesses "against Jesus to put Him to death." When they could not find any, they fall back on false witnesses. These do not serve their purpose either. The false witnesses condemned themselves by contradicting one another.
There was no shortage of men ready to speak against Him. What failed was not the supply of malice but its usefulness.
They found the will, but not the power; readiness to testify, but even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything, except in malice against Jesus. The witnesses gave bribed testimony and the judges were ready to condemn, yet everything failed. The testimony did not agree. As the law required, there must be two or three witnesses in agreement; but these did not agree.
The breakdown was not just bad luck for the prosecution. Commentators see God's hand in it.
There was no thought of an impartial trial. His judges were shamelessly looking for witnesses who would let them sentence Him to death. But the power of God was at work behind the scenes, and every attempt to pin the invented charges on Him came to nothing. They made many attempts... Accusation after accusation broke down as the perjurers fell into confusion and contradicted one another. It seems as though God wrapped their normally sharp minds in a fog of confusion.
The guilt here belongs to Israel's leaders, not to the crowd. The prophets had described this scene long before.
As a nation, Israel was especially guilty of false witness against the Messiah. The Spirit of Christ foreshadowed this sin in the prophets: "False witnesses have risen against me, and they breathe out violence" — "they ask me of things that I do not know" (Ps. 27:12; Ps. 35:11). So when the set time came, the Anointed One presented Himself to the chosen people. It was not the mob but the religious chiefs of the Jews who sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death. In this they broke the very law they were meant to enforce (Ex. 23:1).
The false evidence fell apart, so the council had to reach elsewhere. In the end the only testimony that could convict Him was His own.
We must understand that the Lord's condemnation was already settled. The chiefs of the Jews were only looking for a way to complete their wickedness and murder under a show of justice. They sought witness against Him to put Him to death; but it was false, and the witnesses did not agree together. Many were ready to give evidence, but their testimony counted for nothing. They could condemn the Lord only on His own witness.
Failed lies leave a strange proof behind. Hostile eyes watched Him for years and found nothing, and even paid liars could not agree.
For three and a half years the Saviour served in the fierce glare of hostile criticism... All the facts of His life were therefore fully known. If His enemies could have found a single flaw in Him, how it would have delighted their evil hearts! But He was God's holy One... At the end His judge had to say, "I find no guilt in him" (John 19:6). His enemies could only produce the look of a charge against Him by bribing men to lie under oath in their court.
- Decided — The council had already settled on His death. They looked for witnesses to dress murder in the clothes of justice.
- Divided — Many were willing to lie, but their stories would not line up. The law required two agreeing witnesses, and the case sank.
- Deceived — Writers see God at work behind the collapse. He wrapped sharp legal minds in confusion, so no charge could stick.
- Discredited — The men appointed to enforce the law against false witness were the ones producing it. The prophets had foretold exactly this.
- Declared spotless — Paid lies were the strongest charge they could find. Their failure proves His innocence, and only His own true confession condemned Him.
And certain persons rose up and bore false witness against him, saying,
The night trial of Jesus opens with a search for evidence instead of evidence itself, and the men who stand up to testify tell lies. How does a court end up inventing its witnesses, and why does Jesus stay silent while they speak?
The order of events is backwards. The decision came first. They went looking for testimony afterwards to fit it.
In front of the high priest, the false witnesses condemn themselves by contradicting each other. They looked for witnesses to serve the purpose already in their hearts. And are not those who bring such testimony usually, if not always, of that spirit? Do they not even dare to search Scripture to justify a condemnation they have already settled on? And yet how often they are forced to throw out their own witnesses! How little they can quote without misquoting.
The will was there from the start; what failed was everything else.
"Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but they found none." They found the will, but not the power; readiness to testify, but even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything, except in malice against Jesus.
The charge in the next verse is not invention from nothing. It twists a real saying of Jesus.
Only one of the accusations has come down to us. It shows how careful we must be in repeating the words of another person. Misrepresenting what someone said does great harm, even when no harm was meant. "We heard him say," two witnesses claimed, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands" (Mark 14:58). What the Lord had said was this: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Within three days of this examination before Caiaphas those words came true. The Jews put Him to death. They destroyed the temple of His body. On the third day He rose again.
The witnesses swapped the roles in the saying they reported.
They had to go all the way back to the very beginning of the Lord's public ministry, in John 2. He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." They were to do the work of destruction. He would do the restoring and reviving as a Divine Person... But He was speaking about the temple of His body. They implied that He had said He would destroy it. It does not agree at all.
Jewish law required two agreeing witnesses for a death sentence. The perjurers could not manage even that.
There was no thought of a fair trial. His judges were shamelessly looking for testimony that would let them pass the death sentence on Him. But the power of God was at work behind the scenes, and every attempt to pin the invented charges on Him came to nothing. One accusation after another broke down. The perjurers fell into confusion and contradicted each other. It is as though God wrapped their normally sharp minds in a fog.
There is an irony the court never saw.
They themselves were seeking, even then, to destroy the temple of God, just as His words had implied they would. No one else could replace it, but He would raise it up again.
He answers none of it. The reason is not strategy.
To man's testimony against Him the Lord gives no answer. Defending Himself was not His object, nor even teaching now. He stood as the willing Victim, as the Lamb for the slaughter. As a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth.
So the lies achieved nothing, and the sentence rested on something else entirely.
The testimony did not agree. The law required two or three witnesses to agree, but these did not. So Jesus was rejected, not on the false testimony of men, but on the true testimony of God. It was for His own testimony that they condemned Him. He came bearing witness to the truth, and He bore witness to it to the point of death.
- Decided first. The council settled the verdict first. Then it went hunting for testimony to fit it. That is the mark of a mind that searches even Scripture to justify what it has already chosen.
- Twisted second. The charge twisted a real saying of Jesus. He had given the destroying to them and the raising to Himself.
- Collapsed third. God worked behind the scenes, and liar contradicted liar. The two agreeing witnesses the law demanded never appeared.
- Reversed fourth. The men who accused Him of destroying the temple were the ones destroying it — the temple of His body, which only He could raise.
- Silent throughout. He defended nothing and stood as the willing Victim. In the end the lies did not condemn Him — they condemned Him for the truth He told about Himself.
*We* heard him saying, *I* will destroy this temple which is made with hands, and in the course of three days I will build another not made with hands.
The charge in this verse twists something Jesus really did say, back at the start of His public ministry. The witnesses put a threat in His mouth that He never made, and even then their stories would not line up.
The order of events at this hearing is backwards. The decision came first, and the search for witnesses came afterwards.
In the scene that follows we see, in the chief priests and their council, how deep religious human nature can sink into wickedness. They had already decided to put Christ to death. So the trial that follows was not to find out whether He had done anything worthy of death. It was a horrible device to cover murder with a show of justice.
One writer traces the collapse of every charge to a power outside the courtroom.
There was no thought of a fair trial. His judges were openly looking for any witness who would let them pass the death sentence on Him. But the power of God was at work behind the scenes, and every effort to pin these invented charges on Him came to nothing. They tried many times; verse 58 gives us a sample, and we recognise in it a distortion of what He said in John 2:19. One accusation after another broke down as the perjurers fell into confusion and contradicted each other. It is as though God wrapped their normally sharp minds in a fog.
The gap between what Jesus said and what the witnesses reported carries a warning.
This is a good illustration of how careful we need to be when repeating a person's words. How much harm is done by misrepresenting what someone said, even unintentionally. What the Lord had said was this: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Within three days of His examination before Caiaphas those words came true. The Jews put Him to death. They destroyed the temple of His body. On the third day He rose again. The Lord's words and the witnesses' statement were completely different. Yet even their testimony did not agree.
The witnesses swapped the roles. A command aimed at them became a boast by Him.
It shows how they had to go right back to the beginning of the Lord's public ministry in John 2. He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." They were to do the work of destruction, and He would do the restoring and the raising, as a Divine Person. It is in John that we find this. Usually Scripture says, "God raised Him."… "But He was speaking about the temple of His body." They made out that He had said He would destroy it. It does not agree at all.
Behind the twisted words lies a real contrast: the temple at Jerusalem, and the temple of His body.
The temple at Jerusalem could be corrupted. Nothing could corrupt the temple of the Lord's body, though men could use violence to try to destroy that body. Again and again they tried to stone the Lord, and at last, when the hour had come, they were allowed to "destroy" the temple of His body. Man's wickedness becomes one more occasion for showing His glory as the Son… Man may destroy, but he cannot raise the dead. Christ says, in effect, "When you have done your worst, when you have destroyed the temple of My body, I will raise it up." His resurrection will declare in power that He is the Son of God.
Because the perjury failed, the council had to fall back on the one testimony that was true — His own.
They found the will, but not the power; readiness to testify, but even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything except malice against Jesus. They had bought the witnesses, and the judges were eager to condemn. Still everything failed. The testimony did not agree. The law required two or three witnesses to agree, and these did not. The result was that Jesus was rejected, not on the false testimony of man, but on the true testimony of God. It was for His own witness that they condemned Him. He came bearing witness to the truth, and He bore witness to it to the point of death.
- Rigged. They settled the sentence before the hearing began, then staged a trial to give murder the look of justice.
- Twisted. His actual words were a command to them — destroy this temple — turned by the witnesses into a threat by Him. Misquoting a person, even carelessly, does real damage.
- Reversed. In the true saying, they do the destroying and He does the raising, and He raises Himself as a Divine Person.
- Fulfilled. They destroyed the temple of His body, and on the third day He rose — within three days of the trial itself.
- Condemned. The lies collapsed, so they condemned Him on His own truthful confession: He bore witness to the truth, right to death.
And neither thus did their testimony agree.
The council had already decided that Jesus must die; all they lacked was evidence. So why did even their firmest charge fall apart, and why did the Lord Himself then give them the ground to condemn Him?
The collapse of the witnesses makes sense once we ask what this hearing was for.
In the scene that follows we see, in the chief priests and their council, how deep into wickedness religious human nature can sink. They had already decided to put Christ to death. So the trial that follows was not an enquiry into whether He had done anything worthy of death. It was a horrible device to cover murder with a show of justice. With malice in their hearts, they do not look for the truth. They look for witnesses "against Jesus to put Him to death." When they find none, they fall back on false witnesses. Even these do not serve their purpose, because they condemned themselves by contradicting one another.
Two men came forward with a firm, first-hand statement. Mark's short comment undoes it.
False witnesses were of no use — their witness did not agree. At last two men came who claimed to have heard Him themselves: "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands.'" The statement was very definite. Surely such witnesses could be relied on? Yet the inspired historian adds his quiet remark: "Yet even about this their testimony did not agree." To all this the Lord answered not a word. Condemning Him by bribed testimony was impossible.
Charge after charge fell apart, and the cause lay outside the courtroom.
There was no thought of an impartial trial. His judges were looking, without shame, for witnesses who would let them sentence Him to death. But the power of God was at work behind the scenes. Every attempt to pin the made-up charges on Him came to nothing. They made many efforts. Verse 58 gives us a sample, and there we recognise a twisted version of what He said in John 2:19. One accusation after another broke down. The lying witnesses fell into confusion and contradicted each other. It seems as though God wrapped minds that were sharp at other times in a fog of confusion.
Look at these accusers again, and their charge turns back on them.
Before the high priest the false witnesses condemn themselves by contradicting each other. And are not those who bring such witness usually, if not always, of that spirit? Do they not even dare to search Scripture to justify the condemnation they have already decided on? And yet how often they are forced to throw out their own witnesses! How little they can quote without misquoting. It was they who at that very moment were seeking to destroy the temple of God, just as His words had implied they would, and no one else could replace it — but He would raise it up again.
The law they claimed to serve needed witnesses who agreed. None did, so the sentence had to rest on something else.
They found the will, but not the power; readiness to testify, but even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything except malice against Jesus. The witnesses were bribed and the judges were eager to condemn, yet everything failed. The testimony did not agree. As the law required, there had to be two or three witnesses in agreement; but these did not agree. The result was that Jesus was rejected, not for the false testimony of man, but on the true testimony of God. It was for His own testimony that they condemned Him. He came witnessing to the truth, and He witnessed to it to death.
Mark's Gospel presents Jesus as the perfect Servant, and this detail serves that portrait.
We see the Servant handed over to men, and behind those men stood Satan. In the middle of man's wickedness and Satan's power stands the perfect Servant-Son, alone in His greatness. Mark alone tells us that the witnesses brought against Him did not agree. The Holy Spirit keeps holding Him up as the perfect Servant, in whose character and service not one flaw could be found. But He witnesses the good confession, and on that blessed word of truth from His lips He is condemned.
- Witness sought — The council had settled the verdict first. Then they hunted for witnesses to dress murder up as justice.
- Witness twisted — Their strongest charge twisted His own words about the temple. Such accusers can quote very little without misquoting.
- Witness collapsed — Not even the two matching stories held up. God was at work behind the scenes, and every charge broke down in confusion.
- Witness given — The law needed witnesses who agreed, and none did. So they condemned Him on His own confession — the truth He bore witness to, right up to death.
- Witness vindicated — No charge would stick, because there was no flaw to find in the perfect Servant. Their failure is His certificate of character.
And the high priest, rising up before them all, asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What do these testify against thee?
The council's witnesses had all fallen apart. So the high priest stands up in front of them all and turns on the prisoner Himself. Why does the judge take over the prosecution, and why does the accused say nothing?
He rises because his case has failed, not because it is strong:
In front of the high priest the false witnesses condemn themselves by contradicting each other. They looked for witnesses to serve the purpose already in their hearts. ... How little can they quote without misquoting. ... Still there was no agreement. The high priest then turns to Jesus, to make Him answer what needed no answer, and so make something out of nothing. He is therefore silent.
Their failure says something about man in general:
They found the will, but not the power; readiness to testify, yet even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything, except in malice against Jesus. ... The testimony did not agree. The law required two or three witnesses to agree; these did not.
His silence was not helplessness. He knew what His enemies wanted, and He knew why He had come:
Here in this chapter we find the Lord as a lamb that is silent before her shearers. He does not answer the accusation of His enemies. They were there to put Him to death, and He knew it. And He was there to give His life a ransom for many.
His silence had a limit. When the question turned to who He is, He answered at once:
In the presence of all this hatred and malice the Lord "remained silent and made no answer." Peter saw these solemn scenes. Years later he could tell us that "when He was reviled" He "did not revile in return." "Like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth" (Isa. 53:7). To the accusations of malice He had nothing to say. But when challenged about the glory of His Person, He witnesses to the truth without hesitation, whatever it costs — the perfect example for all His servants.
The same timing belongs to us:
The Lord Jesus was always right. There is a time to speak, and a time to be silent. He knew the time. So with us there is a time to be silent when it is a question of ourselves. But there is a time when it would be treason to be silent — when it is a question of the glory of God.
No accusation would stick. What finally sentenced Him was not their evidence:
The result was that Jesus was rejected, not on the false testimony of man, but on the true testimony of God. It was for His own testimony that they condemned Him. He came witnessing to the truth, and He witnessed to it unto death.
Their malice did not defeat God's purpose. It served it:
All the devil managed to do was to bring to light the truth about the glory of the Person of Christ, and to expose the utter wickedness of religious human nature. If that wickedness is allowed to reach its evil ends for a moment, it is still only an instrument carrying out what God has determined beforehand.
The court that judged Him broke the law it claimed to defend — the high priest most of all:
The prophet Micah had predicted that "the Judge of Israel" would be made subject to human judgment. This came true. Yet it is striking that when the great Judge stood in a human court, every effort to convict Him on human evidence failed. All human witnesses fell into confusion. They condemned Him on the ground of the witness He bore to Himself; and even in doing this they broke the law themselves. It was written: "The priest who is chief among his brothers ... shall not ... tear his clothes" (Lev. 21:10). This the high priest ignored, so agitated was he in the presence of his Victim, so carried away with anger and hatred.
Silence under false charges takes more than self-control. It needs somewhere else to turn:
In the presence of all His accusers His resource was in God. He committed Himself to Him who judges righteously. When falsely accused before the Jewish council, He "remained silent" (Matthew 26:63). ... He was silent before men because He had a resource in God.
- Nothing to answer. The witnesses contradicted each other. So the high priest stood up to make something out of nothing. There was nothing left worth a reply.
- Nothing to defend. He was there not to clear Himself but to give His life a ransom for many, silent like the lamb before its shearers.
- Nothing withheld. Silent about Himself, clear about His Person. He knew when to keep quiet, and when silence would be treason.
- Nothing proved. No human evidence stood. They condemned Him on His own true testimony, and all their malice only brought the glory of His Person to light.
- Nothing shaken. He could be quiet before men because His resource was in God, who judges rightly. That is the pattern for anyone wrongly accused.