The first sermon was preached at the second night of the Carroll County Ministerial Association’s Holy Week Services held at the Hillsville VFW. The second service was held at the Maundy Thursday Service at Mayberry Church.
Jeff Garrison
Carroll County Ministerial Association’s Holy Week Service
April 14, 2025
Mark 14:53-72
For the past fifteen months, I have been preaching through the Gospel of Mark. I’m about done with the book. I’m in the middle of Jesus’ passion right now, so my sermon today will focus on Jesus before the Sanhedrin.
For preachers here, preaching through a book is a great way to both allow yourself to go deeper into the Word while also taking your congregation along with you. When you work through an entire book, you see connections often missed by skipping around.
Our passage involves the events right after Jesus’ arrest, when he is taken from the Garden to the Sanhedrin. The leaders of the Jews have hatched a plan to do away with Jesus. What might we learn from this slice of the events that happened to Jesus during his passage?
In the garden, Mark tells us Jesus was abandoned by all his followers. He’s alone to face what is ahead, as we see in this passage.
One of the literary techniques Mark uses throughout his gospel can be referred to as a sandwich. Mark will take two different ideas or stories and place them together. The two slices of bread deal with the same subject. In the text I’ll read, this involves Peter who follows Jesus from a distance and then betrays him. In our passage, the meat of the sandwich, between the two slices, is the story of Jesus before the Sanhedrin.
Let us pray: Open our ears to hear you speaking, O God. Open our minds to understand, our hearts to know your truth, our eyes to see the needs of others, and our hands and mouths to work for and speak out on their behalf. Amen.
Read Mark 14:53-72
I wonder if there is a magnet inside of me which draws me into jury pools. I have lost count on how many times I have been called to serve, but it’s at least a dozen. I’ve even been called up twice to the big leagues-federal court. But for some reason, partly my profession and the people I know (like defense attorneys), I’ve only served on a jury once.
I was a senior in college when I received my first summons for jury duty. I didn’t think it was fair and tried to get out of it. They gave me an option. I could either serve my jury time during Spring Break, or I could serve the dates scheduled. I chose the latter because I wasn’t willing to give up my last spring break.; I do have my priorities.
On that Monday morning, I was in the New Hanover County Courthouse. They had several courtrooms, and we assigned to different rooms where lawyers asked us questions to decide if we’d be a fair candidate for the jury. In my first room, they pointed out the defendant charged with selling weed and asked if any of us knew him. I raised my hand and acknowledged we had some classes together in high school. I didn’t let on that I barely knew the guy.
Being dismissed, I thought my lucky day had arrived. I wanted to be done and to go back to school and get on with my life. But instead, the judge sent me to another courtroom. In this new courtroom, they were trying to seat a jury for a murder trial. This time, I didn’t know any of the people involved. The next thing I knew I was sitting in the jury box—where I remained the rest of the week.
And while I missed some classes, I learned a lot in those five days. There were lots of time we sat in the deliberation room while attorneys, I assume, argued things out before the judge. But it was an orderly trial. The prosecutor laid out their case, the defense challenged much of it, and the judge charged us with bringing back a verdict on just the facts we’d heard. The trial took three days, and we spent a day in deliberation. In the end, we found the man innocent. The state had not proved its case.
There are some great things about American jurisprudence which we should never take for granted. First, we are innocent until proved guilty. The second is due process. The government is not supposed to deprive us of property or liberty without proving their case in a court of law. And finally, we’re not to be like Jesus, alone before the court of law. We can hire an attorney for counsel and if we can’t afford one, the state must provide us with proper counsel. We should be thankful for these ideals and fight for them.
But it’s not always been this way. It certainly wasn’t this way when Jesus was tried. Mark gospel informs us early in the 3rd chapter, after Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, that there were those out to have him killed. At first, it’s the Pharisees and the Herodians, those Jews who supported Roman control. This created an unholy alliance to do in Jesus. The Pharisees were strict on the law and didn’t want anything to do with gentiles, while the Herodians were, so to speak, in bed with the occupiers. These two dissimilar groups found agreement on the notion that Jesus had to go.
Following his entry into the city, which we celebrated yesterday with Palm Sunday, Jesus cleansed the temple. He chased out the money exchangers and those selling sacrificial animals, Mark tells us the Sanhedrin—the top Jewish leadership which consisted of the chief priests, scribes, and elders—decided then they needed to do something. But they weren’t sure what to do until or even how to identify Jesus. After all, for the Passover, pilgrims poured in. Jerusalem swelling the numbers of people upwards of a quarter million. In a day before photos, how do you pick Jesus out of the crowd?
But then, they couldn’t believe their luck. Judas came knocking on their door, offering to betray Jesus. We know the story. After enjoying the Passover feast with the disciples, Jesus heads to Gethsemane to pray. There, Judas leads arm guards from the Sanhedrin to arrest Jesus.
It’s often pointed out by Biblical scholars the inconsistencies with Jesus’ trial when compared to Biblical and rabbinical law. Before someone could be deprived of their life, the Bible requires two witnesses. And perjury, or lying in court, was so serious that one guilty of it would be subject to the same punishment fitting a guilty verdict for the one on trial. Furthermore, the trials were to be held during the day, not during the night. And had to be over two days, not on just one day. This was to discourage the ramrodding of a guilty verdict. Requiring a second day in court hopefully allowed time for better judgment to prevail.
Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin was a travesty of justice. The leaders had already made up their mind. Those called as witnesses didn’t agree with each other, which should have been grounds for the judge to throw the case out of court. But not in this kangaroo court. Some recall Jesus saying he’d destroy the temple, which at this point had been under construction for decades. It wouldn’t be completed for another three decades. And that, once destroyed, he’d built another temple, not made with hands, in three days. But even here, their testimony didn’t agree.
Jesus stands silent through it all. Finally, the high priest stands and ask Jesus if he wanted to say something in response to all this conflicting testimony. Jesus doesn’t need a lawyer, for he knows to remain quiet. This is good advice, don’t give your opponent something to use against you.
So, the high priest then asks Jesus directly, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Notice, he doesn’t use God’s name (Yahweh or Jehovah). Nor does he use the word, “God.” The Jews took blasphemy seriously and avoided using any word that might trip them up and lead into such a direction.
Jesus now answers, admitting that he is the Messiah, and that they will see him sitting at the right hand of Power (notice, Jesus also avoids using the term God). He continues speaking on how they’ll see him coming in the clouds. Jesus avoids any reference to that which could be considered blasphemy according to Old Testament laws.
However, he does indicate he will be the one sitting in judgment of the Sanhedrin, which I’m sure made them a bit hot under the collar. After all, the Chief Priest identified Jesus as the Messiah, yet he refuses to recognize him.
Even though Jesus’ response doesn’t meet the criteria of blasphemy outlined in the Old Testament, the High Priest has made up his mind. He pronounces Jesus as guilty and deserving death. At this point, the beating and the mocking begins. Blindfolded, they ask Jesus to prophesy.
Ironically, the Sanhedrin can’t carry out the death sentence. They must get the approval of the secular authorities. Jesus will be taken to Pilate, the Roman governor.
Next, Mark places the top slice of the bread on the sandwich, by telling us what happens to Peter. We last saw him slipping into the courtyard of the Chief Priest. While Peter keeps his distance, he does take a risk by following Jesus. But when confronted by strangers for having been with Jesus, Peter realizes the danger and three times denies having ever known him. The crowing of the cock awakens Peter. Ironically, while they taunted Jesus to prophesy, Peter along with Mark’s readers learn that he did prophesy at the Passover table. And his prophecy has come true. Peter has betrayed his Lord.
It should bother us Jesus had to stand trial all alone. In Matthew 25, in the parable of judgment among the nations, Jesus condemns those who had not visited him while in prison. You know the story. Those condemned defend themselves saying they never knew Jesus had been in prison. Jesus responds, “if you didn’t do it for the least of these, you didn’t do it for me.”[1]
While we can’t change what happened to Jesus, we can make sure that no one else must go through such a trial by themselves. As followers of Jesus, we should speak out against injustice, especially injustices brought upon those unable to help themselves. Otherwise, as Matthew 25 warns, we are like Peter, denying Christ. Amen.
Commentaries Used:
Edwards, James R., The Gospel According to Mark, Eerdmans Publishing, 2002.
Hare, Douglas R. A., Mark: Westminster Bible Companion, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996.
Hooker, Morna D., The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 1991, Hendrickson Publishing, 1997.
[1] Matthew 25:31-46 (especially 45).
Jeff Garrison
Mayberry Church Maundy Thursday Service
April 17, 2024
Mark 15:1-15
With this sermon, I will have essentially completed my journey through Mark’s gospel.[1] Last year, Palm Sunday and Easter 2024, I preached on Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection in Mark’s gospel. On Easter, this year, I will again look at Mark’s teaching on the resurrection as I attempt to summarize what we’ve learned from this book.
For our homily this evening, I’m reflecting on the passage you’ve heard from when Jesus was “handed over” to be crucified. Like much of Mark, he’s brief with details at this point. Mark wants his readers to get to the crucifixion and the resurrection. The cross and the empty tomb are essential to our faith.
It is thought Mark wrote his gospel in Rome in the mid-60s, during the reign of Nero. If this is the case, it would have presented some challenges to the author. First, Rome had long ceased being a republic. It was a dictatorship. As such, one had to be careful about criticizing Rome or saying anything that would have put the empire in bad light.
Second, as I have pointed out many times on our journey through this gospel, Mark was writing for a gentile audience. Many think these reasons led Mark to put the blame of Jesus death more on the Jews than the Romans.
But crucifixion wasn’t a Jewish punishment, nor could they have carried out such a punishment even if they wanted. It was the Romans who employed this punishment to ensure slaves and those who lived in occupied territories toed the line. The terror of dying on the cross was enough to make anyone wanting to revolt against Rome have second thoughts. It was a grotesque way to die, and the Romans generally allowed the corpses to remain on the cross while the birds picked them off, something which horrified the Jews. Being sensitive to their culture, Rome allowed the bodies to be taken down before sunset.
In a way, both the Sanhedrin and the Roman authorities are responsible for Jesus’ death. The Sanhedrin, who in Mark are referred to as the chief priests, scribes, and elders, saw Jesus as a threat to their position of power. The Romans wanted to tap down the possibility of a revolt and, because they were conquerors, didn’t care much about the people of Palestine. If the crucifixion of Jesus allowed them to get through another Passover without a revolt, so much the better.
Mark tells us that as soon as it was morning, Jesus was taken to the Pilate. Romans’ rulers generally handled business early in the day. That way, they could have the afternoon free to pursue leisure activities, such as going to the coliseum. It would be like today, politicians doing their work earlier so that when the dew on the greens dried, they could play golf.
Pilate was the face of Rome from 26 through 37 AD. While we don’t know a lot about him outside of his time in Judea, there are several sources beyond the gospels which speak of him while he was there. Not only did he serve as a governor (his actual title was a prefect), but he also served as a judge. Normally, Pilate lived on the coast, in Caesarea Maritima. However, with the Passover pilgrimages flooding in, he moved to Jerusalem to keep his eyes on things. I’m sure handling this complaint from the religious leaders was the last thing he wanted to do.
Before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was charged with blasphemy. The Romans could care less about blasphemy, after all they were mostly pagan, not Jewish. In front of Pilate, they charge him with claiming to be the “King of the Jews.” In the political court, I’m sure Pilate looked at Jesus, who’d already been abused, and shook his head at the thought he was a king. Of course, Jesus is a king, just not the kind Pilate would have recognized.
As he had done earlier before the Sanhedrin (which I preached on Monday night), Jesus mostly remains silent. When asked if he was the King of the Jews, he only says, “You say so.” With the rest of the charges, he remains quiet, which amazes Pilate.
Pilate normally released a prisoner for the Passover. Pilate offers the crowd a choice, he can release Barabbas, a rebel and insurrectionist who had committed murder, or Jesus, the King of the Jews. Mark provides an editorial comment here, stating that Pilate had figured out that the Jewish leaders were jealous of Jesus, which is why they were trying to have him killed. But the crowd, at the priests’ encouragement, cry out for Jesus to be crucified. Even when Pilate asks if what evil Jesus had done, the crowd only cried louder, Crucify.
Mark shows Pilate giving into the crowd. He releases Barabbas and hands Jesus over to be whipped before being crucified. Mark shows Pilate to be a weak man of political expedience. He gives into the crowd only to keep them from rioting. He has no care for justice. Most likely, he looked down on his subjects in Judea, thinking them all inferior. The same goes for his thoughts about Jesus. While he understood that justice was not being carried out, he probably felt it wasn’t worth the risk. Most likely, he saw the Jews contemptible, but not worth arguing over what’s just.
Thanks to the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Philo, we know more about Pilate’s time in Judea. While not as brutal as Nero or Caligula, Pilate could be insensitive and hard-nosed politician.
Pilate once raised the Roman military standard with its emperor’s bust on the pole inside the holy city of Jerusalem. This incited the Jews who interpreted the act as idolatry. Roman normally tried to be sensitive to local customs like this. The Jews marched to the coast and for five days carried out a non-violent protest in front of his home. Pilate ordered the Roman soldiers to herd the crowd to the stadium and slay them. But when the Jews exposed their necks to the swords, he relented and removed the staff.
On another occasion, he took money from the temple and built an aqueduct. The Jews protested. This time, the protest ended with a lot of dead Jews. He again showed brutality when he quelled a Samaritan revolt, which even shocked the Romans and led to his removal from Judea.
When it comes to Jesus, Pilate made a political decision. Who’s going to care what happens to this Galilean. But he was wrong, and unknowingly, he fulfilled his role in the divine plan. Without mercy, Jesus is led away to suffer death for the life of the world.
As Christians, we must not be like Pilate. Because we believe God created everyone in the image of God, we should speak out for justice even when it goes against the popular sentiment. For when justice is denied to one, what’s keeps it from being applied to others? Our God cares for all people, which is why Jesus was willing to pay the price for our sin. In thanksgiving for what God has done for us in Jesus Christ, we should be willing to stand up for justice and mercy. Amen.
Commentaries Consulted:
Edwards, James R., The Gospel According to Mark, Eerdmans Publishing, 2002.
Hare, Douglas R. A., Mark: Westminster Bible Companion, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996.
Hooker, Morna D., The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 1991, Hendrickson Publishing, 1997.
[1] I say essentially, but I did miss Mark’s treatment of the Passover (Mark 14:12-31) due to illness and hope to come back to that passage at a later day.