Mark 14:53-65

The Jewish Trial – You Will See the Son of Man

Mark 14:53-65 – The Sanhedrin Condemns Jesus

The disciples had fled. Mark gave no indication of his sources for the story that would follow. He may indeed have been piecing his story together on flimsy evidence.

It is clear from what he would write later (15:1) that Mark intended to indicate that this trial took place at night. How those gathered managed to be assembled at that late hour, on the night of Passover, did not seem to disturb Mark. He stated that all the chief priests, elders and scribes were assembled. All three groups were loosely constituted. Probably it would have been more accurate to say that a small group of chief priests, elders and scribes had been convened: the Jewish version of a “kangaroo court”.

Peter at this stage had not completely deserted Jesus. He had not accompanied him openly, as he had boasted he would, but at least he seemed to have shown more courage than the other disciples in following Jesus thus far.

Again in claiming that the whole council, the Sanhedrin, was present and apparently unanimous may have been exaggeration. As Mark told the story, the council did not act in an impartial, considered way, though it wished to present the appearance of following proper procedure. They were all shown to have played the role of virtual prosecutor. The alleged evidence about his destroying and rebuilding the temple was not recorded in Mark’s narrative. Jesus had only mentioned to his disciples, in his prelude to his apocalyptic discourse, that the temple would indeed be destroyed in an uncertain future time, but by unnamed agents.

Mark twice insisted on the total lack of incriminatory evidence.

Apparently in a fit of exasperation, the high priest took the cross-examination into his own hands, directly asking Jesus to state before the council if he was the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One.

Jesus gave an answer that brought into focus so much of what he had claimed previously in the narrative. He accepted both descriptions of himself: he agreed to be called the Christ/Messiah, and the Son of the Blessed One. He accepted the title Messiah, (which he had reluctantly tolerated, while endeavoring to reinterpret, on the occasion of his entry into Jerusalem). With his inevitable death, there was now no real danger of its being misinterpreted. For the same reason he accepted the title, the Son of the Blessed One, (already given him by the voice from heaven in the stories of his baptism and transfiguration [1:11: 9:8], and also used by the impure spirits [1:24]).

But Jesus added further clarification. Firstly he formally identified himself personally with the Son of Man figure of Daniel. Then he made the unexpected statement that the high priest himself, and presumably his other judges, would personally witness his moment of triumph when he formally assumed that role.

Neither Jesus nor Mark clarified when that moment would be, but Mark’s account of Jesus’ death would make quite clear that his death was precisely the moment in question (15:33-38).

Jesus was accused of blasphemy. Yet to claim to be Christ/Messiah hardly qualified as such, nor to be the Son of Man. The claims may have been unacceptable to the ears of the council, but they were not blasphemous. Did the blasphemy lie in his claim to be the Son of the Blessed One? Again, not obviously. The psalms consistently referred to the coming Messiah as the Son of God; indeed, David himself was given that title.

Yet on the basis of that claim they maintained that he was deserving of death.

Mark said that all present condemned him to death. There seemed to have been little effort made to determine genuine consensus. Unless those present had been specially chosen, it was more probable that there had been a whole range of attitudes to the message and the importance of Jesus. Without doubt there was a notable and authoritative group determined to condemn him. Given their unanimity and influence, it was not altogether surprising that they carried the day, dissenters being unorganised, not of one mind, and possibly not highly motivated.

On the matter of Jesus’ mistreatment, Mark was consistently sparing of detail. He did not emphasise the physical suffering of Jesus, probably because he saw it as secondary to the still unfinished inner struggle that had assailed Jesus in Gethsemane. On the other hand, it may have been because he was content to leave the details to the informed imagination of his readers. It may also have been because he did not wish to give more prominence than necessary to the dehumanisation and degradation inflicted on Jesus.

Next >> Mark 14:66-72