Gospel of Mark/Chapter 14:53-72/Commentary

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 14:53-72 14:53 “And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together” John notes that Jesus was first brought before Annas (John 18:12-14, 19-23),then He was brought before Caiaphas. Annas had been high priest from A.D. 7-14 but had been deposed. Caiaphas, Annas’ son-law, held the office, but some of the Jews probably regarded Annas as the true high priest. Mark simply starts with Jesus being taken directly to Caiaphas with the entire Sanhedrin present.

14:54 “And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself at the fire”: This verse is inserted here probably to prepare us for Peter’s denial, and indicates that the trial and Peter’s denial took place at the same time. Observe that Peter followed at a distance, yet he did follow. “Apparently he could not bring himself to desert Jesus completely” (Gaebelein p. 768). The building where Jesus was taken had an open courtyard. “Spring nights are cool in Jerusalem (which is at an elevation of about twenty-five hundred feet); so Peter sat with guards and warmed himself before a charcoal fire” (p. 768).

1

14:55 “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; and they were not finding any” 14:56 “For many were giving false testimony against Him, and yet their testimony was not consistent” These verses indicate how “rigged” this trial was. Even though it was very late at night, maybe even early Friday morning, false witnesses were available. Yet there was a problem, despite the fact that many were giving false testimony, they were contradicting one another. According to the Law, in order to condemn a man to death, the witnesses had to agree (Deut. 17:16; 19:15). “The record itself shows the willingness of the Sanhedrin to receive false witness against Christ, for its judges received testimony which they knew to be utterly immaterial if rightly construed” (McGarvey p. 697).

14:57-58 “And some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, ‘We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands’” Some tried to twist Jesus’ teaching in John 2:19, as a threat to destroy the temple in Jerusalem, but the promise to restore or rebuild the temple in three days seemed to negate what some were calling dangerous. “The accusation of hostility to the Temple made sense, because, if it could be established that Jesus repudiated the centrality of the Temple, He could be tried as a rebel. Further, the Romans had an interest in assuring the protection of holy places in the Empire as a guarantee of the stability of law and order among the peoples who worshipped thereat” (Fowler p. 762). The twisted claim to rebuild the Temple in three days also smacked of an assertion of possessing superhuman power, which may have suggested to Caiaphas another approach to try, that is, the claim to deity, as a more likely accusation with which to eliminate Him. 14:59 “And not even in this respect was their testimony consistent”: Yet once again, the witnesses did not agree on what Jesus had actually said.

2

14:60 “And the high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, ‘Do You make no answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?’” At this point Caiaphas becomes desperate because he realizes that this trial is presently going nowhere for all the supposed accusations brought against Jesus are proving to be false and unreliable. “This pretense of fairness in offering an opportunity for self-defense against apparently ruinous, unshakable testimony is an ill-disguised trap leading Jesus to self-incrimination. Caiaphas is not simply presiding now but manipulating the session to achieve his own declared purpose (John 11:45-53)” (Fowler p. 763). “Caiaphas apparently wanted Jesus to respond to the charges made against Him that opportunity provoking an incriminating answer. But Jesus refused to give him that opportunity” (Gaebelein p. 769).

14:61 “But He kept silent, and made no answer”: “Here is impressive proof of Jesus’ total self-mastery” (Hebrews 12:3; Isaiah 53:7) (Fowler p. 763). “Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’”: Caiaphas resorted to asking Jesus plainly and with a solemn oath if He were the Messiah. “Caiaphas put the question with the usual formula of an oath, thus adding moral power to it, for, under ordinary circumstances, one was held guilty if he refused to answer when thus adjured (Leviticus 5:1)” (McGarvey p. 698). All of their false witnesses had failed and all their hatred of Him could not produce a single valid accusation. If Jesus is going to die then He will die for claiming to be exactly who He is, the Son of God. This verse also infers that the Jewish rulers knew that the Old Testament taught that the Messiah would be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7). “Are You the Christ”: By this time the Jewish authorities know that Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God. “The Blessed”: This was a way of referring to God without actually mentioning the name of God. The term “Son of God” in the time of Christ was understood by the Jews to refer solely to the Messiah.

14:62 “And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’”: The right answer to the former false accusations was silence, but now a legitimate question was at stake, 3

to remain silent at this time would be a denial of who He claimed to be. The statement “you have said it yourself” (Matthew 26:64), may mean something like, “The words are yours, however, yes, in a sense that you have not understood and with reservations about what you think these terms mean, yes, I am the Christ, the Son of God” (Fowler p. 767). The straightforward answer that Jesus gives is quite a contrast to the false witnesses.

14:62 “And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”: Jesus claimed to be the “Lord” in Psalm 110:1-4, who would be seated at God’s right hand. In addition, He claimed to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14, which refers to Jesus’ ascension and coronation.

Thus, in this verse, He brings these two passages together. The expression “coming on the clouds of heaven” does not appear to refer to the Second Coming, but rather Jesus’ ascension into heaven (which is the context of Daniel 7:13-14).

Apparently they would “see” this in the events that would transpire on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1ff), and in the subsequent miracles and preaching of the apostles. Yet, they would equally stand before Jesus at the judgment. McGarvey notes that “Jesus brings His present state of humiliation into contrast with His future state of glory. Hard as it might be for them to believe it, the day would come when He should sit in judgment and they should stand on trial before Him” (pp. 698-699).

14:63 “And tearing his clothes, the high priest said, ‘What, further need do we have of witnesses?’”: “Though Jesus had given the very answer which the high priest was longing to hear, yet he hypocritically pretends to be shocked at it, and rends his clothes and feigns horror” (McGarvey p. 699). At the same time, the high priest quickly removes the need for any more witnesses—which was probably a great relief to him, seeing that all the former witnesses were false witnesses.

14:64 “You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?”: The supposed blasphemy is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and by that claim they clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be equal with God and that He Himself was God (John 5:18ff; 10:33). We should note that the Jewish rulers at this point are choosing to ignore all the evidence that backed up Jesus’ claim (John 7:31; 10:38; 12:37; 14:10f). Death was the normal penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:15f).

4

14:64 “And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death”: And the other members of the Sanhedrin equally agreed.

14:65 “And some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the officers received Him with slaps in the face”: “The decision that Jesus deserved the death penalty was the signal for the Sanhedrin to release their pent-up hostilities against Him” (Gaebelein p. 770). “To spit in the face has been an insult in all ages and in all lands” (McGarvey p. 699). Seeing that Jesus did not miraculously defend Himself, it appears that the “courage” of these men comes back to them when Jesus appears to be defenseless. Such mockery was foreseen in the Old Testament (Psalm 22:6f; Isaiah 53:3). Seeing that Matthew does not mention Jesus being blindfolded, McGarvey notes, “If Matthew had been making up his story, he would probably have been on his guard against such omissions; but as he was conscious of writing only the truth, he left his statement to take care of itself” (Evidences of Christianity, p. 92). “These officers received Jesus with many indignities. They seek to make His high claims contemptible, and to make it appear that instead of being divine He is hardly worthy to be regarded as human” (Fourfold Gospel p.

699). Once the members of the Sanhedrin had insulted Him, they turned Him over to the guards, who further hit Him. 14:66 “And as Peter was below in the courtyard”: The text now returns to what had been briefly introduced in 14:54. “One of the servant-girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, ‘You, too, were with Jesus the Nazarene’”: The other writes inform us that this slave girl was the one who confronted Peter with pointed questions (Matthew 26:69ff; Mark 14:66ff; Luke 22:54ff). This slave-girl clearly had her suspicions and reservations about Peter. Morris notes, “All four Gospels agree that this challenge came from a slave girl. It may be that this is part of the reason for Peter’s fall. He may well have been nerving himself to face some stiff challenge, but instead was asked a simple question from a little slave girl” (p. 753). Likewise, often the things that trip us up are not some huge temptation, but something small, unexpected, a small compromise which then starts to snowball out of control. “It would seem that the very moment when Peter entered, the portress had her suspicions…His failure to enter the hearing hall with John, and the general uneasiness which characterized all his movements and which could be read on his countenance, confirmed her suspicions” (Hendriksen p. 393).

5

14:68 “But he denied it, saying, ‘I neither know nor understand what you are talking about’. And he went out onto the porch’”: One would think that Peter would immediately remember what Jesus had said. Yet, it is easy to forget or justify what we are doing. According to Mark, this servant-girl served the high priest and had seen Peter warming himself by the fire (Mark 14:66-67). Mark records that the girl had also said, “Jesus the Nazarene”, for Nazarene was a city in Galilee. Lenski suggests that she was moved by self-importance, wanting these men to realize ‘that she knew something they did not know” (p. 1070). By the firelight she saw Peter’s face more clearly (Luke 22:55-56 “and looking intently at him”). Matthew records that Peter made this denial before all present (26:70).

“After faking complete ignorance and neutrality on the question, he eased away from the fire and walked to the forecourt or gateway, as if he had other business that required his presence elsewhere (Mark 14:68)” (Fowler p. 780).

14:69 “And the maid saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, ‘This is one of them!’”: Observe, that Peter is not being questioned by soldiers, rather, two servant girls have him on the run.

14:70 “But again he was denying it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, ‘Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too’”: “His dialectical pronunciation was typically Galilean, as opposed to the linguistic refinement of the cultured in the capital: ‘Your accent gives you away’ (Matthew 26:73; Luke 22:59).

14:71 “But he began to curse and swear, ‘I do not know this man you are talking about!’”: The more Peter said, the more he convinced people that he was indeed one of Jesus’ disciples. It seems that Peter here is not using four-letter words, but rather he his calling down God’s wrath upon himself if he is lying. Peter is appealing to God as a witness of his truthfulness; therefore his sin consisted of invoking the name of God upon what he knew was not true. Yet, I think we can agree that by this time Peter as lost his temper and is involved in a frantic attempt at self-preservation—which is completely unnecessary. At this time Peter denies even knowing who Jesus is.

14:72 “And immediately a cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, ‘Before a cock crows twice, you will 6

deny Me three times’”: The cock crowing meant nothing to anyone, except Peter.

“Memory, that gift of God, pierced his self-deception, mistaken shame and terror, convincing and condemning him. It reminded him of Jesus’ love and broke his heart, leaving him ashamed, self-condemned and agonizing over his dishonoring the Lord he loved” (Fowler p. 785).

At this point Luke records that Jesus was being brought out—and Jesus made eye contact with Peter (Luke 22:61).

14:72 “And he began to weep”: There is a great lesson here about the nature of true repentance. As long as Peter was trying to protect himself or keep up a false image, he was blind. It was not until Peter realized what he had done, until his eyes met with the eyes of Jesus, did everything change. How are we blinded by our own pride and how we frustrate true repentance by trying to protect ourselves from feeling guilty! (2 Corinthians 7:10-11). Note there are times when a person needs to weep bitterly over their sins. We must resist all attempts to downplay our sins.

Why Did Peter Fail?  Over confidence.  He was prepared for the wrong fight. He expected a physical battle and was completely unprepared for a spiritual battle.  He expected a direct assault and was not prepared for unexpected questions and accusations.  He was more worried about his own safety than serving Jesus.  He thought he had to protect himself and could not trust God.  He thought that in this situation the end justified the means.  He was afraid of what men might think. “His earlier boldness was now replaced by a wary, instinctive, self-protectiveness which tempts a person to resort to any means, even falsehood as a way of avoiding trouble” (Fowler p. 786).  He thought that serious temptations could be met with swords and force.  Never in this entire section is there anything said about Peter going to God in prayer.

7

Fowler notes that we can easily identify with the sins of the great Bible characters, but can we repent with them? “With loyal hearts and deep devotion do we abhor sin and weep over it before God like they? (Psalm 51)� (p. 788).

8