Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was

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.

Before Pilate

This seamless interlocking of the trial machinery was only possible because the Roman prefect, who otherwise resided at Caesarea Maritima on the Mediterranean, took up residence in Jerusalem for the Passover feast and because the Romans customarily began their court sessions at dawn. Of course, a whole series of questions arises at this point: Why were there two trials in the first place? Why was there need for a Roman trial after a Jewish one had just taken place? And the reverse: If the Jewish officials knew a Roman judicial process would be necessary, why did they carry out their own procedure during the night? Furthermore, what was the nature of the formal decision reached by the Sanhedrin? Was it an official sentence of death, or only a resolution to hand Jesus over, that is, a decision to accuse him before the Roman prefect?