Bible Study series. Mark 14:53-65. He was convicted of blasphemy, according to Jewish law. But before God he spoke the truth about himself: He is the divine Son of Man who ascend to the Ancient of Days (God). Peter was following from a distance.

Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together how to apply these truths to our lives.

I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:

biblegateway.com.

If you would like to see the original Greek, please click here:

Mark 14

At that link, I also offer more commentary and a Summary and Conclusion, geared towards discipleship. Scroll down to the bottom and check it out!

Let’s begin.

Scripture: Mark 14:53-65

⁵³ Then they led Jesus away to the high priest, and all the chief priests and elders and the teachers of the law assembled together.

⁵⁴ Now Peter followed him from a distance, right into the chief priest’s courtyard. He was sitting with the guards and warming himself with the fire.

⁵⁵ The chief priests and the whole council were seeking evidence against Jesus, in order to put him to death, but they did not discover anything. ⁵⁶ For many people were bearing false witness against him, but the testimonies were not consistent. ⁵⁷ Some, standing up, were bearing false witness against him, saying: ⁵⁸ “We heard him saying, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and in the course of three days I will build another one that is not made with hands!’” ⁵⁹ But even in this way their testimony was inconsistent.

⁶⁰ The chief priest, standing in the middle of the court, questioned Jesus, saying, “You do not reply to anything that they are testifying against you?” ⁶¹ But he kept quiet and did not answer. Further, the chief priest questioned him and said to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” ⁶² Jesus said, “I am.

And you will see the Son of Man ‘sitting on the right hand of Power,’ [Ps. 110:1]
‘Coming with the clouds of heaven.’” [Dan. 7:13]

⁶³ Then the chief priest, tearing his robes, said, “What further need do we have for witnesses?” ⁶⁴ You have heard the blasphemy! How does the case appear to you?” Everyone condemned him to be liable for death.

⁶⁵ Then some began to spit on him, blindfold him, hit him with their fists, and say to him, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him and beat him. (Mark 14:53-65)

Comments:

This is another intercalation (sandwich). The account and arrest is interrupted twice, first by Peter following at a distance (v. 54) and then by Peter’s denial (14:66-72). The arrest and trial is then picked up at 15:1-5.

Divine irony of the wise and powerful: Caiaphas (the high priest) and the council should know who the Messiah is because they are wise about matters of the law. They have read the Messianic prophecies. In reality, however, they cannot discern or figure out that the Messiah is standing right in front of them. They are victims of divine irony. God know; Jesus knows, but they do not, even though they believe that they do. Not only do they not see that he is the true Messiah, the accuse him of blasphemy.

53:

So these are the assembled Sanhedrin. Jesus had said that these three groups would put him on trial and find him guilty of death (Mark 8:31). The “whole” council is probably a rhetorical exaggeration. A quorum was twenty-three members. But maybe they were very eager to get rid of him, and no doubt the council members were in Jerusalem at the Passover, so all of them really did assemble together.

You can read about them in this post:

Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts

The groups are put in alphabetical order.

Jesus denounced the teachers of the law in Mark 12:38-40. He expanded his denunciation in Matt. 23. No doubt all of the Jerusalem and temple establishment were in his sights.

So is this “trial” legal? Strauss lays out the facts and then his conclusion (pp. 651-52).

According to the Mishnah, a text of oral traditions, collected and written down in about 200 (tract titled Sanhedrin), (1) capital cases must not be tried at night, but Jesus’s trial was. (2) Conviction must wait until the next day, but Jesus’s conviction was done at night. (3) A charge of blasphemy could be leveled if the defendant pronounced the divine name, but Darrel L. Bock in his book about blasphemy, says that the act of blasphemy was broad at this time in Judaism. Trials were to be held in one of three courts in Jerusalem, but not the high priest’s house. And so Jesus’s trial violated these rules. This was not an arraignment, because the guilty verdict was delivered immediately.

54:

Peter is inserted into this scene, in this one verse. The cameras, so to speak, will circle back around to him in vv. 69-75.  He sits down by the fire, warming himself. The high priest was very wealthy to have a courtyard in Jerusalem. Mark inserts the verse here to indicate that Jesus’s trial and Peter’s denial was happening at the same time (Lane). The contrast between the two characters in Mark’s story is stark and clear. Jesus is the hero, and Peter is (temporarily) the failure.

Peter wanted to see the outcome (telos in Greek, pronounced teh-loss). Evidently, this means the end of the whole trial. Was Jesus going to make a deal with the council? Would he guarantee to work miracles against the Romans and liberate Israel? Does the “end” mean Jesus’s life was coming to a close? Today we know with perfect hindsight, that it is the final option, but did Peter really believe Jesus’s prediction at least three times that he was going to die (8:31; 9:30-32; 10:32-34)? It may have been dawning on him that this was the end of his Messiah’s life.

55-59:

In Greek the council is the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court and council.

See this post for a short write-up about them:

Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts

They were looking for witnesses who would testify against him, so they could put him to death. Matthew says the “whole Sanhedrin,” but recall that the Sanhedrin had seventy members (modeled on the Old Testament seventy elders), plus the high priest. Twenty-three made a quorum. And the trial may have gone on a while, as the other Gospel writers imply.

In any case, the Sanhedrin found no one, even though many came forward and bore false witness. Marks says “false witnesses.” Is this Matthew’s opinion, or did the council also consider their testimony not to be reliable? Verses 57-58 may provide the answer. Witnesses said that they heard him say those words about destroying the temple and then building it again. Deut. 19:15 says that out of the mouths of two or three witnesses, every fact should be established or backed up. Here they are.

John 2:19-21 shows Jesus speaking these words at the beginning of his ministry. John explains that he was speaking of the temple of his body. So Jesus remained silent when the high priest challenged him on this point. Why should he explain himself? It would look like he was shifting his ground. “I meant this as my body—when you kill it, I’ll raise it back up.” It’s easy to imagine that they would have considered him as dodging the real accusation. “Oh, now you change your mind! Ha! We won’t allow it!” They could accuse him of intending to overthrow the temple, as witnessed by his cleaning the temple, soon after he entered the city (Mark 11:15-19). After all, Jesus said in the face of the Pharisees that something greater than the temple was here (Matt. 12:6). Reports like these must have come back to the Jerusalem establishment. It was illegal to defame the temple (see Exod. 22:28 for the principle and Jer. 26:1-19 for its application). Jesus was mocked on the cross for saying that he could rebuild the temple (Mark 15:29). Stephen got stoned to death for criticizing the temple and the irreligious behavior of it guardians (Acts 6:13-14; 7:48-50).

The Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin (4:5-5:4) says that smallest inconsistency was enough to discredit two witnesses in a death penalty trial. “The contradictory nature of the evidence frustrated the court’s intent” (Wessel and Strauss). Now we know why the chief priest stood up and took command and asked Jesus the direct question, in the next two verses. He did not want to exonerate Jesus but desperately wanted to put him to death. He could not depend on these contradictory witnesses.

In his commentary on Luke’s Gospel, Darrell l. Bock lists the irregularities of Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin. The tractate in the Mishnah is in fact called the Sanhedrin (the Mishnah is a book of oral law and traditions compiled in about AD 200):

Irregularities at Jesus’ Trial
A	Proceedings in high priest’s house, instead of the temple (m. Sanh. 11.2)
B	Jesus was tried without a defense council (m. Sanh. 4.1)
C	By pronouncing the divine name, Jesus was accused of blasphemy without actually blaspheming in the technical sense (m. Sanh. 7.5) (but see more on blasphemy, below)
D	Verdict came in one day, instead of the required two days (m. Sanh. 4.1)
E	Jesus was tried on a feast day (though which exact time the Last Supper was held is debated)
F	Contradictory testimony can nullify evidence (m. Sanh. 5.2)
G	Pronouncement of guilt by high priest contradicts normal order, which starts with the least senior member (m. Sanh. 4.2)
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 2. (Baker 1996), p. 1792, slightly edited, comment on Luke 22:66.

Bock also lists the evening and morning portion of the Jewish and Roman examination of Jesus:

Evening and Morning Jewish and Roman Examination of Jesus
1	Inquiry before Annas (John 18:13)
2	Evening meeting with Caiaphas presiding (Mark 14:55 = Matt. 26:59-66)
3	Morning confirmation before an official Jewish body, probably Sanhedrin (Mark 15:1b-5 = Matt. 27:1, 2-11 = Luke 23:1-5 = John 18:29-38)
4	Initial Meeting with Pilate (Luke 23:6-12)
5	Meeting with Herod (Luke 23:6-12)
6	A second, more public meeting with Pilate and the people (Luke 23:13-16), and the consequence is to condemn him and release Barabbas: Matt. 27:15-23 = Mark 15:6-14 = Luke 23:17-23 = John 18:39-40
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 2. (Baker 1996), p. 1793, slightly edited, comment on Luke 22:66.

60-61:

The high priest got fed up with Jesus’s silence, so he arose and asked him about the two men’s accusation. His rising indicates he was taking charge of the whole trial. Enough is enough, he seemed to think. Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (that is, God)? Remember Peter’s words: “Then he asked them, ‘You—whom do you say that I am?’ In reply, Peter said, ‘You are the Christ’” (Mark 8:29). Caiaphas did not catch on.

Jesus, instead of belaboring this point about destroying and rebuilding the temple, wanted to go for the heart of the issue—his true identity. He is the Messiah (Christ) the Son of the living God.

But just for a moment, he remained silent, until he spoke the truth, by quoting Scripture, so let’s not over-interpret the silence here. It just means he did not fight back aggressively in a trial with many words. Peter explains:

 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. ²² He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. ²³ When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (1 Pet. 2:21-23, ESV)

Now let’s turn to the remarkable verse in Isaiah’s accurate prophecy.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth. (Is. 53:7, ESV)

I like the image of the lamb, for it can be matched with this verse: “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” (John 1:29, ESV). This one is also relevant: “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:17, ESV).

“Son of the Blessed One”: The high priest had heard rumors that Jesus claimed he was the Christ (or Messiah), the Son of the living God. He accepted praise from people (Matt. 21:9). He explained Ps. 110:1 more thoroughly and completely, right in the face of the Pharisees (Matt. 22:41-46). They were members of the Sanhedrin, or they told the establishment about these words and his Messianic actions after entering Jerusalem in Matt. 21.

In any case, once again we have a severe case of irony. They were the authority figures, experts in the law, but they could not perceive the Messiah right in front of them. They thought they knew the truth, but they actually did not. God did not reveal to the high priest the truth of Jesus’s true identity, though he did reveal it to a lowly fisherman, Peter. (See vv. 31-35 for more comments about irony.)

Caiaphas didn’t fully understand the meaning of the Son of God, but we do now, so let’s look at it from our fuller knowledge in the area of systematic theology.

Jesus was the Son of the Father eternally, before creation. The Son has no beginning. He and the Father always were, together. The relationship is portrayed in this Father-Son way so we can understand who God is more clearly. Now he relates to us as his sons and daughters. On our repentance and salvation and union with Christ, we are brought into his eternal family.

6. Titles of Jesus: The Son of God

When Did Jesus “Become” the Son of God?

62:

Now, finally Jesus answered clearly: “I am” (egō eimi, pronounced eh-goh ai-mee). Incidentally, this exact wording is found in Exod. 3:14: “I am,” speaking of the LORD (in the Septuagint). But here Jesus is emphasizing his Messiahship and his coming to God to be seated at his right hand, vindicated and victorious over the Jerusalem and temple establishment, according to Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13.

First Timothy 6:13 says Jesus made a good confession. It is probable that this verse refers to what Jesus is about to say.

Then Jesus clearly states, once again, who he was by two famous Messianic prophecies. Jesus proclaims before Caiaphas the high priest and the Sanhedrin that from now on they will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. The first half of the confession refers to the Messiah being glorified:

The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps. 110:1, ESV, emphasis added).

The enemies in Mark’s context are the very ones putting him on trial. But it is also bigger than that. The second half of v. 64 refers to the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13-14, when he comes in the clouds of heaven:

¹³ “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. ¹⁴ He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14, NIV, emphasis added)

The Ancient of Days is God. Jesus was about to ascend and be enthroned on high, sitting next to God. So his coming here in v. 23 refers to his ascension and enthronement. Jesus was granted authority over heaven and earth (16:19), and the fact that the gospel was spreading all over their known world indicates that the ascended Jesus has authority and dominion over Caiaphas and the council. This makes the most sense of v. 64, in light of Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13-14.

And no, v. 64 does not refer to the grand and glorious Second Coming when the whole earth will be overtaken by his glorious appearing.

As noted under v. 54 and 55-59, Darrell L. Bock wrote a book on blasphemy happening before the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and particularly before the Mishnah was collected in AD 200. Commentator Osborne summarizes Bock’s finding:

1.. Blasphemy centered on the misuse of the divine name and acts of blasphemy.

2.. Few were allowed to approach the throne of the holy God—not even the archangel Michael was allowed to sit on the right hand of God, so Jesus’s claiming he was about to sit at the right hand of God was blasphemy.

3.. This was not a capital trial but a hearing, so the Sanhedrin did not have to be technically correct.

4.. Sources of the information of the trial was plentiful (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus), so this trial / hearing is not a fiction.

5.. Two levels of blasphemy: Jesus claims to have comprehensive authority from God; and then he claims to be the judge of Jewish leaders (violating Exod. 22:28 on not cursing God’s leaders). This latter claim could be used against Jesus because he could be accused of challenging Rome’s authority.

Source: Grant R. Osborne, Matthew: Zondervan’s Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Zondervan, 2010), p. 999.

In his commentary (Luke 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 2. [Baker 1996]), Bock says that in the early second century, Rabbi Akiva was involved in a dispute because he said that David would have a “session” (being seated) at God’s right hand, which other Rabbis said profaned the shekinah, which was considered blasphemy (m. Sanh. 6.4).

Bock continues:

For most Jews, the idea of coming directly into God’s presence and sitting with him in constant heavenly session without cultic purification or worship was an insult to God’s uniqueness. It was the essence of blasphemy since a human seated by God diminishes his stature. The dispute with Rabbi Akiva makes this clear, as does the leadership’s response to Jesus. Biblical figures who go into God’s presence are first cleansed (Isa. 6, Ezek. 1). In early rabbinic tradition, only God sits in heaven. Anything else insults his person. … One could stand with him, but not sit with him … Thus, when Jesus says that he can sit at God’s right side, then implications emerge about Jesus’ person. The leadership understands these implications. The defendant claims to be the Judge. (p. 1799)

Then Bock states the irony: “With strong irony, the Jews think that Jesus is on trial, but what they do to him does not matter, since he is the true Judge. The very remarks that the Jews think lower God’s stature, in fact, show how exalted Jesus is” (pp. 1799).

See my comments on Mark 13:3-31 about why Jesus’s ascension and enthronement (and later coming-in-judgment on the temple) and the parousia (Second Coming) must be kept distinct.

Mark 13:5-31 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple

Mark 13:32-37 Teaches Second Coming

Bottom line: Jesus will rise in authority in three short days, and the high priest and Sanhedrin will feel its effects by the power of the church in Acts. Peter stood before them, preaching powerfully. Here is just one sample in Acts 5:17-32:

¹⁷ At this time, the chief priests and those with him, who were of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with envy ¹⁸ and nabbed the apostles and put them in public prison. ¹⁹ But at night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison and led them out and said, ²⁰ “Go and steadfastly speak to the people in the temple all the words of this salvation and life!” ²¹ They obeyed and went to the temple at daybreak. The high priest and those with him arrived and summoned the Council [Sanhedrin] and all elders of the descendants of Israel and sent to the prison to escort them out. ²² But the assistants did not find them in the prison, so they turned back and announced, ²³ “We found the jail locked up very securely and the guards standing at the doors, but, opening them, we found no one inside.” ²⁴ As the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard this account, they were perplexed about all of this—what might happen.

²⁵ Someone came in and announced to them, “Amazing! The men whom you put in prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people!” ²⁶ Then the captain left with the assistants and led them away without violence, for they feared the people stoning them. ²⁷ Leading them onwards, they stood them right in front of the Council [Sanhedrin]. The high priest examined them, ²⁸ “We ordered you strictly not to teach in this name! And look at you! You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood on us!” ²⁹ But Peter answered and the apostles replied, “We have to obey God rather than man! ³⁰ The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had done away with by hanging him on wood. ³¹ It is this man whom God exalted the Overall Ruler and Savior at his right hand, to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. ³² And we are witnesses of this storyline and of the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to all who obey him!” (Acts 5:17-32, my tentative translation)

Now Jesus is the one with authority from on high, and then his church was gradually overtaking the nation of Israel and going way beyond that tiny nation.

After Stephen said the temple is of no real importance because God does not live in an object made with hands (Acts 7:44-50), much like Jesus’s false accusers emphasized the temple made with hands, Stephen says he saw the exalted Son of Man:

Being full of the Holy Spirit and fixing his gaze on heaven, he [Stephen] saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; ⁵⁶ and he said, “Look! I see the heavens opening wide and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55-56)

“right hand of Power”: Jesus is exalted at God’s right hand, which indicates his power and authority.

63-64:

Jesus’s truthful confession caused the high priest to tear his robes, which represents extreme sorrow, perhaps even of outrage, and a pronouncement of guilt. It symbolized distancing one’s holy self from a blasphemer. Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.5 says that when the judges heard a blasphemous statement in court, they are “to stand on their feet and rend their garments” (Wessel and Strauss). It seems the chief priest stood in for the other members of the Sanhedrin.

The chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law conclude that he committed blasphemy (see Luke 22:69-71), which deserves death (Lev. 24:10-16, 23). They sentence him to death—all because they could not interpret Scripture correctly. The punishment was stoning the guilty party (Lev. 24:16), but that’s not the Roman method of execution.

Now the question is: Can they make the charge of blasphemy stick before the Roman authorities? They did not allow Jews to execute people (except for a Gentile entering unlawfully into the temple holy place). No, they could not make it stick, so they have to add politics to the charge against him. They falsely accuse him of making himself king (implied in 15:1-5 and stated in Matt. 27:11). And there is no king but Caesar.

In any case, the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law are still swimming around in human ignorance. They are about to advocate the crucifixion of their true Messiah, which also fulfills Scripture they don’t understand: Is. 53. The Messiah has to suffer and die. Their ignorance is just irony—the irony of justice. God did not reveal who his Son truly was to them. So some call this divine irony. God uses people’s arrogance and ignorance, combined, so they can lead themselves into judgment, out of their own free will, dark and unenlightened though it may be.

65:

They physically abuse him and sneer at him. “Prophesy!” Matthew 26:68 explains more fully: “Prophesy, Messiah! Who slapped you?”

“with their fists”: Is. 50:6 uses the same noun in the Septuagint (a third-to-first-century translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek).

Jesus is practicing what he preached in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38), because he didn’t struggle or punch back.

Here’s Isaiah’s prophecy:

As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance. (Is. 52:14, ESV)

But please don’t over-interpret this verse or the whole trial by applying it to the government today. They have a right to “slap back” when citizens are harmed. Paul, writing by the inspiration of the Spirit, says that God ordained government, and its “ministers” carry the sword (Rom. 13:1-4). God’s “ministers” can use violence to fight violent offenders and protect people. So Paul hands the sword over to the State. The Church, as the church, has no right to hit people with swords or execute them, and certainly not for religious reasons.

Should the State ‘Turn the Other Cheek’?

Let’s apply this entire scene to our lives. As I noted in other chapters, first-century Israel was an honor-and-shame society. Verbal and active confrontations happened often. By active is meant actions. Here the confrontation is both verbal and acted out. Jesus healed the paralytic, so he won the actual confrontation, and this victory opened the door to his verbal victory with religious leaders who were binding people up with traditions. They needed to be loosed from them. Jesus shamed the leaders to silence. He won. It may seem strange to us that Jesus would confront human opponents, because we are not used to doing this in our own lives, and we have heard that Jesus was meek and silent.

More relevantly, for many years now there has been a teaching going around the Body of Christ that says when Christians are challenged, they are supposed to slink away or not reply. This teaching may come from the time of Jesus’s trial when it is said he was as silent as a sheep (Acts 8:32). No. He spoke up then, as well (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:32; Luke 23:71; John 18:19-23; 32-38; 19:11). Therefore, “silence” means submission to the will of God without resisting or fighting back physically. But here he replied to the religious leaders and defeated them and their inadequate theology. Get into a discussion and debate with your challengers. Stand toe to toe with them. In short, fight like Jesus! With anointed words!

Of course, caution is needed. The original context is a life-and-death struggle between the kingdom of God and religious traditions. Get the original context, first, before you fight someone in a verbal sparring match. This was a clash of worldviews. Don’t pick fights or be rude to your spouse or baristas or clerks in the service industry. Discuss things with him or her, if it is appropriate. But here Jesus was justified in replying to these oppressive religious leaders.

GrowApp for Mark 14:53-65

1. Jesus suffered like this because he loved you and intended to die for your sins. How do you love him back? Name at least two ways you can do this.

RELATED

10. Eyewitness Testimony in Mark’s Gospel

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

2. Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels

14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series

SOURCES

For bibliographical data, please click on this link and scroll down to the very bottom:

Mark 14