Mar 14:53-65 | TNotes | STEP | Summary for Mark 14:53-65: 14:53-65 The story of Jesus’ trial follows immediately upon his arrest. Objections have been raised as to the historicity of the various accounts of Jesus’ trial, because of differences of detail from the rules found in the Mishnah tractate Mishnah Sanhedrin . However, (1) the Mishnah was written around AD 200, whereas the Gospel of Mark was written in the late 60s, over 130 years earlier; (2) the rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin idealize what later rabbis thought should take place in such trials and do not necessarily describe what did in fact take place; (3) it is questionable whether the Sadducees leading the Sanhedrin would have followed the Pharisaic rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin (see Acts 23:6-10 ); (4) the rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin sometimes conflict with what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote; (5) existing laws of conduct were not necessarily followed—Jesus was being tried by a kangaroo court, in which the sentence was predetermined and only the charge for carrying it out was sought (Mark 14:55 ); (6) if we must choose between the trial accounts found in the Gospels and Mishnah Sanhedrin , there is no reason to choose the reliability of Mishnah Sanhedrin over that of the Gospels. Summary for Mark 14:53-54: 14:53-54 The leading priests, the elders, and the teachers of religious law were not synonymous with the “entire high council” (14:55 ; 15:1 ), or Sanhedrin, but they made up a large part of it. Peter followed Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard , where the Sanhedrin was meeting. The stage is set for Peter’s denial (14:66-72 ).

Summary for Mark 14:53-65: 14:53-65 ^a The story of Jesus’ trial follows immediately upon his arrest. Objections have been raised as to the historicity of the various accounts of Jesus’ trial, because of differences of detail from the rules found in the Mishnah tractate Mishnah Sanhedrin. However, (1) the Mishnah was written around AD 200, whereas the Gospel of Mark was written in the late 60s, over 130 years earlier; (2) the rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin idealize what later rabbis thought should take place in such trials and do not necessarily describe what did in fact take place; (3) it is questionable whether the Sadducees leading the Sanhedrin would have followed the Pharisaic rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin (see Acts 23:6-10 ^b); (4) the rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin sometimes conflict with what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote; (5) existing laws of conduct were not necessarily followed—Jesus was being tried by a kangaroo court, in which the sentence was predetermined and only the charge for carrying it out was sought (Mark 14:55 ^c); (6) if we must choose between the trial accounts found in the Gospels and Mishnah Sanhedrin, there is no reason to choose the reliability of Mishnah Sanhedrin over that of the Gospels.
Summary for Mark 14:53-54: 14:53-54 ^d The leading priests, the elders, and the teachers of religious law were not synonymous with the “entire high council” (14:55 ^e; 15:1 ^f), or Sanhedrin, but they made up a large part of it. Peter followed Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, where the Sanhedrin was meeting. The stage is set for Peter’s denial (14:66-72 ^g).
Summary for Mark 14:55-59: 14:55-59 ^h The trial took place before the entire high council (Greek Sanhedrin), which had seventy members and was led by the high priest. The Gospels portray a formal trial: There was a search for witnesses (14:55 ⁱ), eyewitness testimony (14:56-59 ^j), Jesus being placed under oath (Matt 26:63 ^k), Jesus being allowed to defend himself (Mark 14:60 ^l), the high priest tearing his robe (14:63 ^m), and the concluding verdict by the Sanhedrin (14:64 ⁿ). This does not mean that it was a fair trial—the decision to put Jesus to death had already been made. Evidence was not sought to determine the truth, but to obtain a guilty verdict and death sentence.

• False witnesses giving false testimony misrepresented what Jesus said about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple (see 15:29 ^o; John 2:19 ^p; Acts 6:14 ^q). Because the false witnesses contradicted each other, their testimony was unacceptable (Num 35:30 ^r; Deut 17:6 ^s; 19:15 ^t).
Summary for Mark 14:60-61: 14:60-61 ^u Since the false witnesses failed to agree (14:56 ^v), the high priest sought incriminating testimony from Jesus.
14:62 ^w I Am: Cp. study note on 6:49-50. The reader has known from the beginning that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1 ^x). This was acknowledged by demons (1:24 ^y; 3:11 ^z; 5:7 ^aa), by God (1:11 ^ab; 9:7 ^ac), and by the disciples (8:29-30 ^ad), but this is the first time that Jesus openly and publicly acknowledged that he was the Messiah.

• The second part of Jesus’ reply was that he would sit in the place of power at God’s right hand, which foretold his resurrection and ascension (Luke 24:50-51 ^ae; Acts 1:9-11 ^af; see Phil 2:9 ^ag; Heb 1:3 ^ah) and his triumphal coming on the clouds of heaven to judge the world. At Jesus’ return, roles will be reversed, and those judging the Son of Man will be judged by him.
Summary for Mark 14:63-64: 14:63-64 ^ai The high priest tore his clothing at Jesus’ response. This was a judicial act that indicated a guilty verdict and signified that there was no need to find other witnesses. The rest of the Sanhedrin agreed that Jesus was guilty and deserved to die.

• Exactly what was blasphemous in Jesus’ reply is unclear. Perhaps it was his reply “I Am,” which was the way God referred to himself in Exod 3:14 ^aj (see John 8:58 ^ak). However, Mark is not necessarily repeating the actual words Jesus said at his trial (cp. Matt 26:64 ^al; Luke 22:70 ^am), so these words could simply be indicating Jesus’ affirmative response to the high priest’s question. He was the Messiah, the Son of God. During the second Jewish revolt against Rome, Bar Kokhba (AD 132–135) claimed to be the Messiah, and it was not considered blasphemous. Jesus’ identification of himself as the Son of Man cannot have been considered blasphemous, for we have over fifty instances before Jesus’ trial in which he used this title, and the charge of blasphemy was never raised. Yet it was too much for the high priest and the Sanhedrin when Jesus clearly claimed to be the Son of Man of Dan 7:13 ^an coming in God’s name to judge the world. This declaration was also added to the fact that, during his ministry, Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5-7 ^ao; Luke 7:48-50 ^ap), claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 12:6 ^aq), pronounced judgment upon the Temple (14:58 ^ar), and claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath (2:28 ^as). Already convinced that Jesus should be put to death, the religious leaders now pronounced the predetermined guilty verdict (14:55 ^at).
14:65 ^au spit: See 10:34 ^av.

• Prophesy: See 6:4 ^aw, 15 ^ax; 8:28 ^ay; 14:58 ^az.

• Similar abuse would follow his trial before Pontius Pilate (15:16-20 ^ba).