Talk 44 Mark 14:53-72 Jesus’ trial and Peter’s denial
Welcome to Talk 44 in our series of Mark’s Gospel. Today we’re looking at chapter 14, verses 53-72. This passage recounts the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Peter’s denial of Jesus in the courtyard of the high priest’s house where the trial was taking place. The key figures in the passage are:
- The members of the Sanhedrin who wanted Jesus dead
- Jesus himself who knew that his death was necessary for our salvation
- Peter who denied Jesus even though he had protested that he would never do so.
We’ll begin by reading verses 53-65 where we see the outrageous injustice of the trial and Jesus’ refusal to defend himself.
53 They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. 54 Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire. 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
53 They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together.
The word for high priest in Greek is archiereus. It’s unclear why NIV sometimes translates this as chief priest. Perhaps it’s because, although Caiaphas was the high priest, Annas his father-in-law, who had been high priest until he was deposed by the Romans, was also present. So by all the chief priests Mark means all two of them!
54 Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.
We’ll deal with this verse when we come to Peter’s denial at the end of the chapter.
55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any.
The Sanhedrin was a council comprised of 71 men, including both Pharisees and Sadducees, who were supposed to be the spiritual leaders of the nation. The vast majority of them had opposed Jesus throughout his ministry because of:
his forthright condemnation of their hypocrisy
his interpretation of the Old Testament which was radically different from theirs
his recent actions in ‘cleansing’ the temple – see Talk 34
his claims to be the Messiah.
If Jesus proved to be the kind of Messiah the people were expecting, they feared that this could lead to a revolt against Roman authority. This seems to have been the justification they were looking for in seeking to kill Jesus. In John 11:50 Caiaphas had stated that it was better for one man to die than that the whole nation perish. It’s more likely, however, that their true motivation was the fear of losing their privileged position in society.
56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
These verses underline the total injustice of the whole trial. Mark emphasises that their testimony was false. This is emphasised by the fact that even then their testimony did not agree. Part of the role of the Sanhedrin was to uphold the Law of Moses. As we’ve seen in previous talks, they were insistent on obedience to petty regulations but ignored the more important matters of the Law – justice, mercy and faithfulness. Jesus had accused them of straining out gnats but swallowing camels (Matthew 23:23-24)! Now these religious leaders reveal the full extent of their hypocrisy. To achieve their ends, they wilfully ignore justice and break God’s clear commandment, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour (Exodus 20:16).
Of course there was an element of truth in the testimony of those who reported what Jesus had said about destroying the temple. Who will believe what a liar says if all that he says in untrue? A successful liar is one who includes in his testimony things which are true, but nevertheless distorts the truth in some way. No doubt that’s why in our lawcourts today a witness must promise to say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Notice the difference between what Jesus actually said in John 2:19 and what these false witnesses reported him as saying:
- Jesus had not said I will destroy… He said Destroy…
- He had had not said I will destroy this man-made He said Destroy this temple.
- He had not said I will build another, not made by man. He said I will raise it again.
John goes on to explain that Jesus was talking about the temple of his body. To say the least, the accusation levelled against Jesus was inaccurate, whether deliberately so or not. The witnesses against him were unreliable, their testimony a distortion of what he actually said.
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
At first Jesus will not dignify their false accusations and questions with an answer. He did the same when later interrogated by Pilate (John19:8-11). Perhaps he had in mind the prophecy of Isaiah:
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (Isaiah 53:7).
But perhaps he remained silent because he knew that there was no point in defending himself. He had already committed himself to the way of the cross and his death was now inevitable. He replies only when charged under oath in the name of the living God to reveal his identity (Matthew 26:63). And his reply is just what the high priest is hoping for.
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
In the Greek text, the words for I am are ego eimi. In John’s Gospel Jesus’ frequent use of these two words are undoubtedly a declaration of his deity. See, for example, John 8:58 where Jesus declares, I tell you the truth… before Abraham was, I AM. It’s possibly Mark’s intention in including it here, but if not, what Jesus says next is enough to incur the charge of blasphemy. Jesus came to bear witness to the truth, and that included the truth about himself. He was none other than the great I AM. And that truth would ultimately be vindicated. Those who accused him of blasphemy now would one day see him seated at God’s right hand.
63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.
Caiaphas is delighted. He now has all the proof he needs. Jesus has condemned himself out of his own mouth. There’s no more need for witnesses. Jesus deserves to die. But under the Roman occupation, the Jews couldn’t put anyone to death. For that they would need Pilate’s authority. But not before they have taken the opportunity to ridicule and mistreat the prisoner.
65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
Matthew 26:68 gives us a slightly fuller version of this – Prophesy, Christ, who hit you. In other words, Surely if you are the Christ, the Messiah, you can tell us by prophetic revelation who hit you. But Jesus remains silent. The spitting, the punching and the beating are only the beginning of the unjust treatment that Jesus is to receive over the next 24 hours.
From what we have seen so far, it’s clear that the whole trial was rigged from the start. Jesus’ accusers were not interested in finding out the truth. They were looking for an excuse to get rid of him. They couldn’t find any real evidence that would condemn him, so they invented it! The witnesses were all biased. They were clearly prepared to say anything they thought would achieve their purpose. They distorted what Jesus had said and made it mean something quite different. Finally, they mistreated Jesus before taking him to Pilate to demand the death sentence.
And we need to remember that Jesus warned his disciples that they would be treated unfairly too. There’s plenty of evidence of this in the Book of Acts. An example that comes to mind is Stephen, the first Christian to die for his faith. When his hearers couldn’t stand up against his wisdom and the Spirit by whom he spoke… they secretly persuaded some men to say that they had heard him speak words of blasphemy (Acts 6:10-11). And most of the early disciples were martyred for their faith.
And, as I’m sure most of my listeners will know, there are many parts of the world where even today Christians are being unjustly treated, persecuted, and tortured for their faith. But even in countries where this is not happening, many of the opponents of Christianity are guilty of the same hypocrisy as Jesus’ accusers were at his trial. They’re not really interested in finding out the truth. They’re looking for excuses to disbelieve his message because they are not prepared to accept its implication for their lifestyle. If they really wanted to know the truth, they would find it.
But, of course, we Christians are not always innocent when it comes to hypocrisy. Fear of the opposition can cause us to deny what we truly believe, as we see as we now read the rest of today’s passage:
54 Peter followed Jesus at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.
66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said. 68 But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entrance, and the cock crowed. 69 When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” 70 Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” 71 He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.” 72 Immediately the cock crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the cock crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
This passage speaks for itself. But let’s just remind ourselves of what happened earlier in the chapter. In verse 27 Jesus had told his disciples, You will all fall away. But in verse 29 Peter declared. Even if all fall away, I will not.
But Jesus answered, I tell you the truth… Today – yes, tonight – before the cock crows twice you yourself will disown me three times. But Peter insisted emphatically, Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.
He declared his loyalty. He insisted on it emphatically. But now, in the courtyard of the high priest, he declares his disloyalty to Jesus even more emphatically. He calls down curses on himself and swears, I don’t know this man you’re talking about. And in doing so he fulfils the prophecy of Jesus and disowns him three times. The cock crows, and Peter remembers and breaks down in tears.
But, of course, we know that that’s not the end of the story. At the very end of John’s Gospel, we read how, after his death and resurrection, Jesus gives Peter the chance three times to reaffirm his love and loyalty and reassures him that he will yet have the opportunity to lay down his life for him.
And that turns our attention away from Peter and onto Jesus himself, for in Peter’s disloyal actions we see the reason for Jesus’ actions during the trial. It was for Peter, and for people like him, for you and for me, that Jesus doesn’t defend himself, that he refuses to answer the charges brought against him, that when put under oath he confesses the truth as to who he really is.
He knows it will lead to his death, but he knows that the shedding of his blood is the only way to atone for all the sins, all the failings, all the disloyalty of all the ‘Peters’, throughout all the world, for all time. So he remains loyal to his Father’s will, and his loyalty unto death atones for our disloyalty. His obedience atones for our disobedience.
And that’s why, in Peter’s own words, even though we have not seen him, we love him (1 Peter 1:8). It’s because he suffered for us that we are willing to follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:21), remembering that, after we have suffered a little while, God has called us to his eternal glory in Christ (1 Peter 5:10).
Lord Jesus, we do love you, even though we haven’t seen you.
Because you suffered for us, we are willing to follow in your steps and, if need be, to suffer for you.
And we thank you that you have called us to your eternal glory. Amen.