Probably, the greatest problem evil men have, when confronting a righteous man, is his integrity. This is especially so, if the righteous person lived a public life, whereby many are witnesses of the man’s integrity. For evil men to prosper, the righteous must be eliminated or compromised in some manner that takes away their influence with the people. Such was the problem facing the chief priests and the other Jewish authorities making up the Sanhedrin council (Mark 14:55). Knowing they couldn’t legally arrest Jesus, they sought to do so through trickery, but without arousing the ire of the people (Mark 14:1-2).
Although the Jewish authorities had successfully found men willing to lie and slander Jesus, yet they found none whose false testimony agreed enough with other false witnesses that would allow them to judge and condemn him to death (Mark 14:55-56). Finally, two came whose witness claimed Jesus said he could destroy the Temple of Jerusalem and raise it up in three days without using his hands, but even their testimony couldn’t be made to agree (Mark 14:57-59). So, in the end, the efforts of the Jewish authorities to come up with a verifiable accusation failed. There wasn’t enough there to get rid of the one who threatened their authority simply by teaching the word of God.
While all this was taking place, Jesus said nothing. He never uttered a single word in his defense, probably because he knew the whole affair was verifiably illegal.[1] Jesus’ silence must have been a source of irritation for the high priest, who finally rose up saying, “Answer you nothing?” (Mark 14:60). Yet, Jesus remained a silent bystander at his own mock trial (Mark 14:61a; cp. Matthew 27:12-14), which sought conclusive evidence to be presented at the official, but equally illegal, trial in the morning (Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1; cp. Luke 22:66-71).
It is difficult to believe the high priest’s composure was calm and in full control, because everything they had sought to achieve had failed. Although they had their enemy bound and under their power, yet they couldn’t do anything to him without endangering themselves and their positions. No doubt, the high priest was not calm when by an oath to God he demanded of Jesus to tell the court if he were the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61).
We need to put the high priest’s question in context, because many, today, believe he was asking Jesus if he were God in the flesh. However, the phrase Son of God or Son of the Blessed is a messianic term. The Jews had no concept of the Messiah being God or of God becoming man in order to embrace the office of Messiah. All the high priest was asking was for Jesus to admit that he was, in fact, the Messiah, and I believe this was for the purpose of presenting such evidence or confession to Pilate, and have Rome deal with Jesus as a seditionist. In the end all the Jewish high court was seeking was damning political evidence that could have Jesus condemned as a criminal and enemy of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, when Pilate was presented with such evidence, he found Jesus innocent, because Jesus’ Kingdom of God didn’t present any political threat to Caesar (John 18:33-38).
Out of respect for the high priest’s oath to God, calling the Father to witness, Jesus broke his silence and replied to the high priest’s question. However, Jesus used the term Son to say he was the literal Son of God and, therefore, equal in essence with him (John 5:18; 10:30, 33). In other words, Jesus’ reply to the high priest wasn’t in the political sense, as was the context of the question. Rather, Jesus’ reply addressed the high priest’s question in its literal sense, and Jesus told the high priest that he would see “the Son of Man (a term for the Messiah) sitting on the right hand of Power, coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62; parenthesis and explanation mine). In other words, Jesus’ reply portrayed himself coming to judge Jerusalem in the same manner that the Lord had judged the nations in the past (viz. Psalm 68:4; Isaiah 19:1; Jeremiah 4:13-14). Jesus claimed to be the Lord God in the flesh!
I truly believe Jesus’ reply was unexpected. The high priest was astonished and tore open his garments in a show of the gravity of what he had just heard, believing it to be blasphemy (Mark 14:63-64). I don’t believe it would be wrong to say the high priest was elated at Jesus’ reply, which in itself contradicts the rending of his garments, which, by the way, he was never to do (Leviticus 21:10). He perceived Jesus had given them much more than the council had sought. They looked for political evidence that would serve them in employing Rome to destroy Jesus, but Jesus had just claimed to be God in the flesh, which they perceived was blasphemy[2] and punishable by death (Leviticus 24:11, 16). Therefore, the whole court rose up and condemned Jesus to die, and began beating him, spitting on him and mocking him (Mark 14:64-65).
____________________________________________________
[1] See my earlier study: Contradictions and Jesus’ Illegal Trial.
[2] See an earlier study: Jesus Before the Sanhedrin.
Smoodock's Blog 