More than than They Bargained For
Mark 14:53-62, Remsen Bible Fellowship, 06/15/2025
Introduction
Revelation 1:5b-7, “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and has made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.”
Turn with me in your Bibles to Mark’s gospel, chapter 14.
They had all run. Fled. Turned tail and disappeared into the darkness in a desperate attempt to avoid being taken, with him, by the authorities. The mob with their swords and clubs marched him off into that same night, headed back into the city.
Their destination? The home of Ciaphas, the high priest. There, in his large upper room, the council of elders and chief priests and scribes came together. The seventy men of the Sanhedrin, not meeting in the market halls as they normally would, but instead gathered in this home. No gathering of this size could rightly be called secret, but the darkness of the event was pregnant with meaning. The workers of darkness had gathered under the cover of night in order to do the works of darkness. Verse 53, “And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together.”
But for the reader, we feel a flicker of hope when we read the following verse. 54, “And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire.” Here is Peter, who had boldly pledged his allegiance to Jesus in v29 & v31, had impulsively cut off an ear in v47, and then turned tail with the rest of the disciples in v50—he’s back. He followed—yes, at a distance, but followed nonetheless. He has not utterly abandoned his Lord.
But he is hanging back. Outside the home of Ciaphas the high priest, Peter stands out here warming his hands against the chill of a cool spring night. Far enough to, hopefully, not be noticed. But near enough to hear what’s happening inside.
And what’s happening inside could best be described as a banana court, a proceeding that has nothing to do with the execution of justice and everything to do with looking for a pretense to convict. The courtroom has more in common with a lynch mob than a hall of justice. The chief priests and the council weren’t looking for the truth—they were looking for a pretense: V55-56,
Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree.
They sought testimony to condemn him, but they couldn’t find any. The reason is simple, and Pilate will identify it in the following chapter (15:14): Jesus had never done or said anything evil. He had never broken any law, let alone a law which carried the death penalty.
That doesn’t stop our enterprising adversaries from trying to get witnesses for their cause, though. You don’t need much imagination to picture the same people who had paid Judas to turn Jesus over also finding a whole stable of false witnesses—many bore false witness against him—but the problem was they hadn’t paid enough money to get their story straight. We can be understanding, of course: they were in a hurry, what with this hurried nighttime courtroom scene. No one had time between changing out of their pajamas and rushing down to Ciaphas’ house to stop for a story-coordination meeting.
Mark even gives us an example of one piece of false testimony in v57-59,
And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree.
Now, if you are familiar with the gospels, and the words Jesus spoke, what these witnesses say might sound familiar—you might catch yourself thinking, wait, didn’t Jesus say something like this? Are these false witnesses wrong? And the answer is yes, they are wrong. And that’s why they can’t agree—because their details are all jumbled up. Jesus certainly said some very offensive and shocking things concerning the temple, but never once did he claim that he would tear it down himself.
What the accusers seem to be doing is mixing and mashing together two separate sayings of Jesus. The first is found in John chapter 2. The setting in this chapter is that Jesus has just entered—and then forcefully cleared—the temple. In verse 15 of John 2, Jesus makes a whip out of cords, and then drives the sheep, oxen, money-changers, and pigeons out of the temple courts. He then proceeds to dump out the money at the exchange booth, and toss their tables. He’s made a rather grand entrance to Jerusalem, you might say.
And the Jews—a term that, in John’s gospel, usually refers to the leadership class in Jerusalem…the very same men who have Jesus on trial three years later—demand a “sign” for “doing these things”. Jesus replies with these words: “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (v19). Now, does he say anything in there about him destroying the temple? No, in fact, he lays the impetus for that action at their feet. The Jerusalem leadership class will be the ones who destroy God’s temple. But what does Jesus say he will do? “In three days, I will raise it up.” And the gospel writer tells us two verses later that “he was speaking about the temple of his body.” He predicted that the leadership class would kill his body. But not permanently.
Nonetheless, you could see where the accusers might get the idea about a temple not made with hands, and the fact that Jesus would build it inside of three days. The other place we find Jesus speaking about the destruction of the temple is earlier in Mark, in chapter 13. In Mark 13:2, Jesus tells his disciples that not one stone will be left upon another, in the day of the temple’s destruction. There he clearly was speaking about the destruction of the temple “made by hands.” Nonetheless, does he claim that he will personally be the one doing the destroying? No. Though, as I argued when we went through Mark 13, Jesus is the Lord of history and therefore superintended the destruction of the temple, specifically as an act of judgement upon the Jewish people for their rejection of the Messiah, he still was not claiming that he was going to show up personally with a sledge and a jackhammer. Rather, he used the Roman General Titus to accomplish that fact some forty years later.
So, what we find in the gospels is that Jesus did predict the downfall of the temple. And he did predict his own bodily resurrection from the dead. But never once did he threaten any crime, nor did he violate the law of God.
The Sanhedrin knows that Jesus is innocent. The witnesses know that Jesus is innocent. The dogs and the cats in the vicinity know that Jesus is innocent—everybody knows. Mark makes repeated reference to the fact that the witness testimony didn’t line up.
So what kind of brilliant defense does Jesus marshal against these false accusations? Short answer: none. Verse 60 and on in to v61 says, “And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?’ But he remained silent and made no answer.” Reading this scene reminds me of Isaiah 53:7, “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.”
In standing silent and simply receiving the hurled insults and accusations of the religious and political insiders, Jesus fulfilled in part the picture of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Further, I think he is putting on beautiful display that truth of Proverbs 26:4—“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” Jesus knows these men don’t care about the truth of any of their accusations—why would he waste breath in correcting them?
It’s not the point of the passage here, but a useful note in our hyper-offendable age: you don’t have to answer every accusation, you don’t have to correct every wrong thought or idea even if the falsehood is aimed against you. Andie has joked that on my headstone she will place the words, “Well, actually…” — so I’m speaking from experience when I say that there is a temptation to vindicate yourself, to fix all the bad thinking, to refute every falsehood, and to really be under the illusion that such actions and words will amount to something more than a waste of breath—and usually that’s just not true. Especially if you are wasting time arguing with people in comment sections or on Facebook, save yourself some gray hair and just stop. Jesus is a model here. They throw false accusations against him, the chief priest knows their false but is hoping that he will respond with something they can prosecute for—but Jesus gives him nothing.
Turn
Nothing, that is, until he asks a direct, pointed, question: v61b, “Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
As we’re reading this, the questions can fill our mind—how will Jesus answer this one? Will he remain silent, still? Mark’s gospel has often been called the gospel of secrecy, because Jesus’ identity as the Christ, the Jewish Messiah—while clear to the reader from the very first verse—is hidden from so many until the back end of the book. Jesus repeatedly silences those who would spread the news of his identity, from those he has healed of diseases, to demons. So how will he respond to this direct question from the high priest?
Jesus drops a theological and cultural bomb in the middle of the faux-court scene. “Are you the Christ?”, asks Ciaphas. “And Jesus said, ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’” (v62). That might sound like standard Jesus-imagery to us, if we’ve grown up or had much exposure to the history of Christian art. But friends, let me give you the technical theological term for this in the 1st century: thems is fightin’ words.
You can see that in the high priest’s response, as well as that of those around. Mark 14:63-65,
And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.
Why did the high priest tear his garments—a formal sign of mourning and distress? Why did the council condemn Jesus as worthy of death on account of his two-sentence testimony? Why did those around feel justified in striking, beating, and mocking the Lord? Why the violent reaction to Jesus’ simple answer?
Because they understood his claim. And they hated it.
Jesus answer, “I am”, in response to whether he was the Christ, was a bold claim to make. But when Ciaphas is asking if he is the Son of the Blessed, that is, the Son of God, he doesn’t mean that in the Christian sense. To a first century Jew, Son of God simply means the king from the line of David whom God will treat as a son. I say, “simply”, even though this itself is an amazing claim—many false christs had come before—but in saying simply, what I mean is that Jesus was not, with those two words, claiming to be God. To simply say he was the messiah might have been called blasphemy, but it might have simply been called a lie. It was what he said next that got their blood to boiling.
When Jesus claimed that they would see him seated at the right hand of Power, he is clearly saying that he will be seated at the right of of YHWH, the Lord God. This is a reference to Psalm 110:1, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit a my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’”
In that Psalm, David sees the LORD (all capital letters, the proper name for God in the Old Testament) speaking to his Lord (capital L, lowercase ord, that is, the One who rules over David) saying, “sit at my right hand.” If we want to put this in NT terminology—which Jesus explicitly does in this passage—this is God the Father saying to God the Son, “sit here, at the right hand of my power.” This is only a temporary place, though. He is seated until all his enemies are made a footstool. This idea is carried on in verse 5, “The Lord [lowercase ord, God the Son, Jesus Christ] is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.”
The overall idea from these two verses in Psalm 110 is that the Son will be seated at the Father’s right hand, until the time comes when he executes judgement on all his enemies. Which brings us to the second place from which Jesus draws his imagery—Daniel chapter seven.
I’ve referenced Daniel 7 verses 13 & 14 a lot over the years, in large part because it’s the place from which Jesus draws his favorite self-designation—Son of Man. But this morning I want to back up and start reading in verse nine. In this vision, Daniel is shown the heavenly courtroom. Daniel 7:9-14,
“As I looked,
thrones were placed,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat;
his clothing was white as snow,
and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames;
its wheels were burning fire.
A stream of fire issued
and came out from before him;
a thousand thousands served him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him;
the court sat in judgement,
and the books were opened.
“I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.”
That’s a longer passage than I usually like to use for a cross-reference. And it’s weird. If you are feeling guilty for thinking it’s weird, don’t—the following verses tell us Daniel himself was pretty upset by it.
But it’s important for understanding Jesus’ words before the high priest. Jesus, when he says he will come with the clouds of heaven, is explicitly tying himself to this image of the son of man appearing before God the Father, the Ancient of Days. He is claiming for himself authority and dominion over all rulers, nations, and languages.
And he is doing so in the context of judgement. Verses 9-12 of Daniel 7 and a vision of the furious wrath of the perfect and Holy God. He takes his seat in heaven’s throneroom, and the fury of his judgement pours forth upon the earth, swallowing up his enemies.
When we combine that image with the one in Psalm 110, we get a picture very much like the one in Revelation 19:11ff, where one called The Word of God comes forth executing God’s judgement upon the world.
I know that’s a content dump, so let’s try and tie it together as neatly as possible:
Jesus is standing in the makeshift courtroom of the Sanherdin, being falsely accused, and pointedly questioned by the High Priest. When it comes right down to the point—the question of whether or not Jesus is the Messiah—he answers no simply with a “yes”, though he starts there. But he goes on to a make a claim that he is on his way to the right hand of the Heavenly Judge, and that he has authority over the banana court he’s standing in, as well as over every court—legitimate or not—which ever has or ever will exist. His authority stretches over all of humanity, over all of the angels and demons, gods with a lowercase g. To borrow a phrase from a Dutch theologian, there is not one square inch of all creation over which the Lord Jesus does not cry out, “Mine!” Jesus is claiming that he will bring the Sanherdin—and all of rebellious humanity—under God’s judgement.
In essence, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of Man who will come on the clouds flips the entire situation on its head—who is really on trial here, Jesus, or the Jewish authorities? Who is really in danger of prosecution?
Conclusion
When set in this light, it’s pretty easy to see why the council responded as they did. If Jesus were claiming these things falsely, he would, in fact, be guilty of blasphemy. But if it’s true—and they had every evidential reason to know he was telling the truth—then they were in great peril themselves.
And so they responded the way many of us do when backed into a corner. They lashed out. In anger, in fury, and in violence. And that’s where the text leaves us. Even the guards are receiving him with blows.
The question this text poses to us is a simple one: how will you respond to the claims of Jesus? Not the Jesus of your imagination, not the Jesus of the paintings in the church you grew up in, not the Jesus of the story bibles: but the real, living, Lord Jesus who even now says that All authority in heaven and on earth has been delivered to him (Matthew 28:18-20). The Lord Jesus who will one day come to judge the living and the dead. How will you respond to him?
If you respond in faith, trusting in the blood he shed on the cross to cover your sins, placing your hope in the resurrection life he promises to all of those who love him, then his coming in judgement is actually good news for you. That’s what those verses from Revelation one which I opened with teach us. If you repent of your sins, bow to Jesus as Lord, and receive him as your Savior, then he has made you a part of his kingdom. More than just a part, he has made you a priest, a minister of his kingdom—someone with direct access to him by prayer and the word.
But if you refuse, if you join the Sanherdin in hardening your heart against him, then the news of his judgement is hard and fearful. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. And friends, Jesus is the Living God. Bow your life to him.
