sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mark 14

Mark 14:43-65 (HCSB)

The Judas Kiss

43 While He was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, suddenly arrived. With him was a mob, with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 His betrayer had given them a signal. “The One I kiss,” he said, “He’s the One; arrest Him and take Him away under guard.” 45 So when he came, he went right up to Him and said, “Rabbi!”—and kissed Him. 46 Then they took hold of Him and arrested Him. 47 And one of those who stood by drew his sword, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his ear.

48 But said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs, as though I were a criminal,[a]to capture Me? 49 Every day I was among you, teaching in the temple complex, and you didn’t arrest Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then they all deserted Him and ran away.

51 Now a certain young man,[b] having a linen cloth wrapped around his naked body, was following Him. They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth behind and ran away naked.

Jesus Faces the

53 They led Jesus away to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribesconvened. 54 Peter followed Him at a distance, right into the high priest’s courtyard. He was sitting with the temple police,[c] warming himself by the fire.[d]

55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but they could find none. 56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but the testimonies did not agree. 57 Some stood up and were giving false testimony against Him, stating,58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will demolish this sanctuary made by human hands, and in three days I will build another not made by hands.’” 59 Yet their testimony did not agree even on this.

60 Then the high priest stood up before them all and questioned Jesus, “Don’t You have an answer to what these men are testifying against You?” 61 But He kept silent and did not answer anything. Again the high priest questioned Him, “Are You the , the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus, “and all of you[e] will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of .”[f]

63 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard the ! What is your decision?”[g]

And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Then some began to spit on Him, to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, saying, “Prophesy!” The temple police also took Him and slapped Him.

Footnotes: a. Mark 14:48 Lit as against a criminal d. Mark 14:54 Lit light b. Mark 14:51 Perhaps who later e. Mark 14:62 Lit and you wrote this f. Mark 14:62 Ps 110:1; Dn 7:13 c. Mark 14:54 Or the officers; lit the servants g. Mark 14:64 Lit How does it appear to you?

1 Mark 14:43-65 (NIV)

Jesus Arrested

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin

53 They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the 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 temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 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 Messiah, 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.

2 Holman Christian Standard - Study Bible1 Mark 14:43-65

14:43 In fulfillment of Jesus' prediction in 8:31, the mob hailed from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders—the three parties of the Sanhedrin. This was an officially sanctioned arrest party.

14:44 Signal refers to a sign agreed on in advance. The specific signal was a kiss (probably on the cheek). While a kiss was a common greeting (Lk 7:45; Ac 20:37; Rm 16:16), this is the only a is recorded as greeting Jesus this way (cp. 2Sam 20:9-10).

14:45 Rabbi means "my great one." It was an address of honor to one's teacher.

14:47 The attack on the high priest's slave is recorded in all four (Mt 26:51-52; Lk 22:49-51; Jn 18:10-11). John identifies the attacker as Peter and the slave as (Jn 18:10). Apparently Jesus' disciples asked if they should defend Him with swords (Lk 22:49), but Peter didn't wait for a reply. On Jesus' disciples carrying swords, see note at Lk 22:35-38. Jesus restored Malchus's ear (Lk 22:51).

14:48-50 The Scriptures that must be fulfilled are not identified, but verse 50 points to Zech 13:7 as one of them. They all deserted Him refers to the fleeing disciples.

14:51-52 The young man is unidentified, but many have suggested he was John Mark, the author of this Gospel.

14:53-65 No single Gospel comprehensively records Jesus' trials, and each emphasizes different perspectives and events. It is clear, however, that both Roman political authorities and Jewish religious leaders were involved in handing down Jesus' death sentence.

14:53 They refers to those who arrested Jesus (vv. 43,46). Matthew said the high priest was , who served from A.D. 18-36 (Mt 26:57). That all three parties convened indicates this was a meeting of the Sanhedrin (vv. 43,55).

14:54 Peter followed the arrest party and ended up warming himself (cp. Jn 18:18) in the high priest's courtyard.

14:55-56 The entire Sanhedrin, especially the chief priests, had already decided to put Jesus to death, so they went looking for evidence to justify their plan. Many witnesses gave false testimony that did not agree under cross-examination. The OT required the agreement of two witnesses in a capital case (Num 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).

14:57-58 Some who gave false testimony claimed firsthand experience. Apparently they distorted Jesus' remark in 13:2 where the same word for demolish was used.

14:59 Only Mark noted that the accusers did not agree even on this (cp. Mt 26:60). The took threats against the temple seriously (cp. Jer 26:7-24). This charge was issued against Jesus again while He hung on the cross (Mk 15:29).

1 Jeremy Royal Howard, ed., HCSB Study Bible, (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2010), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "Mark 14". 3 14:60 Frustrated with the ineptitude of the proceedings, Caiaphas stood up and questioned Jesus himself.

14:61-62 Throughout Mark's Gospel Jesus had shied away from the title Messiah to avoid misunderstanding, but here He embraced it. I am (cp. Mt 26:64; Lk 22:67) echoes the divine name (Ex 3:14). Jesus then switched to His favorite self-designation Son of Man and quoted from Ps 110:2 and Dan 7:13. To be seated at the right hand was an honor (cp. 10:37,40). Coming with the clouds of heaven is often understood as a reference to the second coming, but all of you will see leads some interpreters to understand that Jesus was referring to His post-ascension enthronement in heaven.

14:63 Tearing one's clothes symbolized grief (Gen 37:34; Jos 7:6; 2Sam 1:11-12; 2Ki 2:12) or horror at blasphemy (2Ki 18:37; 19:1). Witnesses were no longer needed since Jesus had incriminated Himself by claiming He was the Messiah.

14:64 Deserving of death indicates death by stoning for blasphemy (Lv 24:10-16).

14:65 To spit in a person's face (Mt 26:67) was the ultimate insult (Num 12:14; Dt 25:9; Job 30:9-10). Jesus predicted this would happen (Mk 10:34; cp. 15:19). Isaiah described this as one of the sufferings of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 50:6).

HCSB Apologetics Study Bible2 Mark 14:43-65

14:53 According to the later Jewish rabbinical writings known as the Mishnah, capital cases could not be tried at night and required two consecutive days before verdicts could be rendered. If these criteria were used in the first century, either convention was flouted in this case for expediency's sake or, more probably, this was not an official trial. The "trial" before the high priest seems to have been an ad hoc gathering of the ruling council demanded by the course of events (i.e., the opportunity afforded by Judas and the desire to do away with Jesus before the feast). Its purpose appears to have been to arrive at a consensus to deliver Jesus to the Romans with recommendation for execution. We must assume that Peter was informed of the proceedings by others in the high priest's household and related the trial to Mark or that some present at the trial—perhaps Nicodemus or later reported the proceedings to the early church.

14:61-62 "The Blessed One" is an uncommon expression for but is attested in Jewish literature. Caiaphas was demanding that Jesus admit plainly whether He was the Davidic Messiah. Mark made plain the intent of Jesus' actual, more evasive wording, which Matthew recorded (see note on Lk 23:3). On the timing of the return of Christ, see note on Mt 26:64.

14:63-64 Caiaphas probably did not take Jesus' admission to be the Messiah as blasphemy. He did see as blasphemy Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man who approaches God's throne (Dn 7:13-14) and the one who sits at God's right hand (Ps 110:1), sharing His authority. Later rabbis condemned such an understanding of the Messiah. Threatening the high priest was also related to the charge of blasphemy. According to rabbinic sources (m. San. 7:5), once the judge has heard blasphemy—a capital offense—he is to stand and tear his robes.

2 Alan Hultberg, “Notes on Mark,” in The Apologetics Study Bible: Understanding Why You Believe, ed. Ted Cabal (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 1498-1499. 4 NLT Life Application Study Bible3 Mark 14:43-65

14:43-45 Judas was given a contingent of police and soldiers (:3) in order to seize Jesus and bring him before the religious court for trial. The religious leaders had issued a warrant for Jesus' arrest, and Judas was acting as Jesus' official accuser.

14:47 According to John 18:10, the person who pulled out a sword was Peter. :51 records that Jesus immediately healed the man's ear and prevented any further bloodshed.

14:50 Just hours earlier, these disciples had vowed never to desert Jesus (14:31).

14:51, 52 Tradition says that this young man may have been John Mark, the writer of this Gospel. The incident is not mentioned in any of the other accounts.

Jesus' Trial

From , Jesus' trial began at the home of Caiaphas, the high priest. Jesus was then taken to Pilate, the Roman governor. Luke records that Pilate sent him to Herod, who was in — presumably in one of his two palaces (Luke 23:5-12). Herod sent him back to Pilate, who handed Jesus over to be crucified.

14:53ff This trial by the high council had two phases. A small group met at night (John 18:12-24), and then the full high council met at daybreak (Luke 22:66-71). They tried Jesus for religious offenses, such as calling himself the , which, according to law, was blasphemy. The trial was fixed: These religious leaders had already decided to kill Jesus (Luke 22:2).

3, Life Application Study Bible, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1988), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 1657-1658.

5 14:55 The Romans controlled Israel, but the Jews were given some authority over religious and minor civil disputes. The Jewish ruling body, the high council, was made up of 71 of Israel's religious leaders. It was assumed that these men would be just. Instead, they showed great injustice in the trial of Jesus, even to the point of making up lies to use against him (14:57).

14:58 The statement that the false witnesses finally agreed to use as an accusation twisted Jesus' actual words. Jesus did not say, "I will destroy this Temple made with human hands"; he said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Jesus was not talking about Herod's Temple but about his own body.

14:60-64 To the first question, Jesus made no reply because it was based on confusing and erroneous evidence. Not answering was wiser than trying to clarify the fabricated accusations. But if Jesus had refused to answer the second question, it could have been taken as a denial of his mission. Instead, his answer predicted a powerful role reversal. Sitting at God's right hand in the place of power, he would come to judge his accusers, and they would have to answer his questions (Psalm 110:1; Revelation 20:11-13).

New American Commentary4 Mark 14:43-65 12. The Arrest (14:43–52) In addition to recording a necessary fact, Mark emphasized further the treachery of Judas, indicated that Jesus was no revolutionary or a man of violence, and showed the fulfillment of Jesus’ words in v. 27. Still further Mark probably pictured Jesus as a model for Christian conduct during persecution.

14:43 Again Mark used the word (euthys), which means immediately but which here is rendered “just as” by the NIV. He pointed out that Judas was “one of the Twelve.” There was no attempt to cover up the disgrace of Jesus being betrayed by one of his own disciples. The word translated “crowd” here indicates a mob or rabble with no offcial status. Mark used the word “crowd” (oxlos) for those Jesus taught and fed (2:4, 13; 3:9; 4:1, 36; 6:34, 45; 7:14, 17; 8:1, 34; 10:1; 11:18; 12:12, 37). Prior to this usage in 14:43 the crowd was never hostile to Jesus. After 14:43 (15:8, 11, 15), the crowd was always hostile to Jesus.

It seems unlikely, however, that the “chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders”—i.e., the Sanhedrin or at least some of its leaders—would have employed such a group for the delicate task of arresting a popular teacher. Furthermore, Luke 22:52 indicates that the temple police were employed, and John 18:3 indicates that they were accompanied by some Roman soldiers. Perhaps Mark’s diction was not exact; perhaps he was reflecting a Christian caricature of those who arrested Jesus. More likely Mark was not clumsy and knew what he was saying. He, in a representative fashion, used this crowd to typify the larger public, which from this time forward was hostile to Jesus.

4 James A. Brooks, New American Commentary – Volume 23: Mark, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 235-243. 6 14:44 Evidently Mark understood the betrayal to consist of indicating the time and place where Jesus could be found with few others about and identifying him in the darkness. A kiss was a common way for a disciple to greet his teacher and beyond that an act of endearment between any two persons. The mention of it confirms the wickedness of Judas’s act. The NIV translation “under guard” is a good treatment of the adverb, which literally means firmly, safely, securely.

14:45–46 Jesus was previously called “Rabbi” in 9:5; 10:51 (where a more emphatic word is used); and 11:21. Much more often, however, Mark translated the Hebrew term with the Greek word meaning “teacher.” The word translated “kissed” is an intensive form of the word in v. 44 and could indicate a prolonged kiss or a very elaborate one.

14:47 Mark’s account is brief in comparison with that of the other Gospels. Luke 22:50 and John 18:10 indicate that it was the right ear that was cut off, and John 18:10 identifies the assailant as Peter and the victim as Malchus. :52; John 18:11; perhaps Luke 22:51 contain the command to sheath the sword. Luke 22:51 indicates that Jesus replaced the severed ear. The use of the diminutive form of the word “ear” may indicate that only a portion of it was affected. Some have questioned the historicity of the account because there is no indication that the assailant was arrested, but there may have been a scufle in the darkness during which he could not be identified or he ran off.

14:48 The Greek text reads literally, “Have you come out as against a thief?” (cf. RSV, NASB, NEB, REB); but the word “thief” probably refers not to a common criminal but to a revolutionary. The NIV interpretation therefore is quite accurate.

14:49 The statement may indicate that Jesus had been in Jerusalem more than a week, as John’s Gospel clearly shows. Mark emphasized that Jesus did most of his teaching in public. Therefore, there was nothing secretive or seditious about it. This fact had great significance for the Christian community in Rome at the time Mark wrote. Mark did not indicate what () Scriptures Jesus had in mind. :12 (Mark 14:46–49) and Zech 13:7 (Mark 14:50) are the most likely individual passages, but it is also possible that the reference is to the teaching of the Scripture in general.

14:50 This verse indicates the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction in v. 27. For once Mark did not explicitly mention the disciples but referred to them by the word “everyone.” Perhaps “everyone” includes the crowds, which earlier had protected Jesus from the Jewish leadership (11:18; 12:12). The position of the word at the end of the Greek sentence emphasizes that Jesus was left completely alone by those who might have been expected to stand by him.

14:51–52 Much speculation has taken place about the identity of the “young man.” The traditional view is that he was John Mark, the author of the Gospel, and that Mark included the account as a way of confessing his own . The incident is so trivial—it is found only in Mark—that for some the only explanation is that it is the author’s allusion to himself, his “signature in the corner of his work” or something comparable to a medieval artist painting his own face on one of the crowd.

This explanation, however, seems to be of modern origin. In the early church the young man was occasionally identified with (Ambrose, Chrysostom) or James the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church (Epiphanius). Furthermore, Papias (ca. A.D. 130) said that Mark “neither heard the Lord nor followed him.” The description may allude to Amos 2:16 and/or Gen 39:12. It has also been pointed out that in 15:46 Jesus’ naked body was wrapped in a linen cloth so that the present passage may anticipate the . Still further it has been pointed out that in 16:5 another young man, in contrast to the cowardice of this one, announced the resurrection. It is probably best not to try to identify the young man. The view that the reference is an autobiographical one pointing to John may be the most probable, but it is still nothing more than a possibility. Although the young man cannot be identified, the incident is of such a nature that it is most likely an eyewitness account.

If perchance the young man was Mark, he may have followed Jesus and his disciples from the upper room, which could possibly have been in the home of his mother. The wearing of a linen cloth suggests a well-to-do person, and Mark’s mother evidently was wealthy because she had a house large enough for meetings of the church (Acts 12:12). The word translated “naked” could mean that, or it could refer to wearing only a loin cloth. The former is more likely because, although the NIV does not translate it, the Greek text reads “being clothed with a linen cloth over his naked body” (cf. NASB). The incident may have been remembered because it was so unusual. Mark may also have wanted to associate “nakedness,” which is an image of shame, with anyone who abandons Jesus (cf. 8:38).

13. The Jewish Trial (14:53, 55–65) One last time Mark resorted to bracketing/intercalation/sandwiching in order to use two accounts to help interpret each other. This instance, however, is more complicated than the previous ones. Instead of one account merely being inserted into another, both accounts are interrupted by the other. The intercalation in 14:53–72 contrasts the confession of Jesus with the and upholds Jesus as a role model for Roman Christians to follow when they were interrogated by the authorities. In Mark’s account Peter as well as Jesus was on trial. Peter dismally failed his test; Jesus triumphed in his. In the providence of God, the passage applies to Christians of all and all situations in which their faith is in any way challenged. The trial account also gave Mark an opportunity to develop further his Christology and show clearly who Jesus really is.

The historical problems connected with the trial account are notorious. At various points Mark’s account is in violation of the provisions of the Mishna tractate Sanhedrin 4–7. First, no trial could be held at night. Second, the verdict in a capital case could not be reached until the second day, and therefore trials could not be held on the eve of the Sabbath or a feast day. Third, witnesses had to be warned to relate only true, firsthand testimony. Fourth, those accused of blasphemy could be convicted only if they reviled the Divine Name. Fifth, trials could not be held in the palace of the high priest. Sixth, the Old Testament does not specify as a punishment.

Various explanations of the irregularities have been given. First, virtually all of the evidence pertaining to what was legal or not comes from the Mishna. The Mishna was not completed until about A.D. 220 and contains a miscellaneous collection of traditions from various rabbis during the three previous centuries. Dating individual traditions is diffcult and even impossible. It is unlikely that all of the Mishna’s “laws” were in force during the time of Jesus. Therefore the trial may not have been illegal. This claim may have some validity. Second, the trial may have involved illegalities. Illegal trials and perversions of have occurred throughout human history in all societies (including “Christian”), and this trial may well have been such an instance. No injustice should be excused, but first-century Jews should not be condemned beyond all others for their error. Third, not only Jews but in recent decades liberal Protestants and Catholics have contended that Mark’s account reflects an anti- Jewish bias so that he pictured some things as illegal that were not. Furthermore, how could Mark have known what went on in private before the Sanhedrin? Quite aside from any prejudice, he could not have had accurate information. Fourth, what Mark described in chap. 14 was not a formal trial but an informal hearing. Some have compared it to a police interrogation following an arrest or to a grand jury inquiry. Therefore none of the prescriptions of the Mishna would be applicable. According to one explanation of 15:1, a formal trial was held the next morning. Therefore this explanation could have some validity, but

8 confidence about it is elusive. Even so it would not account for a trial on the eve of a Sabbath and feast day or conviction on the same day.

There are diffculties with the account. Not all of them can be resolved on the basis of present knowledge. Uncertainty about various points must remain; however, there is no decisive objection to the historicity of the account.

14:53 Mark did not name the high priest. According to Matt 26:57 he was Caiaphas. The “chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law” constituted the Sanhedrin (v. 55 and see comments on 11:27). Note how the statement in this verse fulfills the one in 8:31.

14:55 The statement “were looking for evidence” supports the view that Mark was describing an informal hearing, but the expression “the whole Sanhedrin” points toward a formal trial.

14:56–59 Jewish law stated that at least two, and better three, witnesses had to agree before imposing the death penalty (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.15). Mark indicated that none agreed because they were testifying falsely.

Mark did not record that Jesus made a public statement about the destruction of the temple such as the one in v. 58. He did record in 13:1–2 a private prediction of the destruction of the temple, and the cursing of the fig tree and the clearing of the temple in 11:12–21 probably intimate the same. John 2:19 does record such a statement. The Jews understood the reference to be to the Jerusalem temple (v. 20), but John indicated that the reference was to the body of Jesus (v. 21).

Some interpreters think that in Mark the words “man-made” and “not made by man” are later scribal interpolations to prevent the kind of misunderstanding reflected in John’s Gospel, but there is no manuscript evidence for omission and no other evidence unless it is the omission in 15:29 and Matt 26:61. That Jesus did make a statement about the destruction of one temple and the construction of another is certain. There was therefore an element of truth but also an element of untruth in the charge. Jesus never claimed that he would destroy the Jerusalem temple. He did indicate that the “temple” of his body and the literal temple would be destroyed by others.

The recipients of the Gospel no doubt realized that Jesus’ death made the temple and its cultus irrelevant and to that extent “destroyed” it. This may be symbolized by 15:38. Jesus never claimed that he would rebuild the Jerusalem temple in three days or any other time period, but he did intimate that the new temple of his resurrection body would be raised in three days. The expression “not made by man” may allude to his resurrection body. Still further the early church came to look upon the individual Christian (1 Cor 6:19; cf. Rev 3:12) and the whole church (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:20–22) as the new temple.

14:60–61 Jesus may not have answered because there was no need to do so. No charge had been sustained. Silence indicated innocence.

The silence of Jesus fulfilled Ps 38:13–14 and especially Isa 53:7. Some commentators insist that claiming to be the Messiah (“the Christ”) was not a capital offense. They point to Simon bar Kosiba, who led the revolt of A.D. 132–35 and who was acclaimed as the messiah even by the famous Rabbi Akiba. Others think that to make such a claim without accompanying it with convincing credentials, such as military prowess, might have been a crime because Jewish hopes centered on a messiah who would deliver from foreign oppression.

9 Many commentators agree, however, that no Jew would associate the Messiah and the Son of God (“Blessed One” is a Jewish substitute for the divine name) because the Jews were expecting a human, not divine, messiah. They insist that the high priest could not have spoken the words in the last part of v. 61, that the words represent the theology of Mark and the early church. This claim overlooks the fact that on the lips of the high priest “son of God” need not signify more than “son of David.” Israel’s kings were sometimes called sons of God (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26–27), and the messiah was looked upon as a new king of the line of David. In fact, all of the passages just cited have messianic implications.

Jesus’ association of the titles of v. 61 with “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One” (v. 62) reinterpreted these potentially ambiguous titles as divine honors that make v. 61 one of two passages that constitute the climax of Mark’s Christology—the other being 15:39. At the very beginning of his Gospel, Mark announced that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God. Throughout the Gospel allusions are made to Jesus’ messiahship and sonship (1:11, 24; 3:11; 5:7; 8:29–30; 9:7; 10:47; 12:6, 35– 37; 13:26). Now near the end two of the most important titles are brought together—ironically on the lips of an opponent.

14:62 In view of the secrecy motif that has pervaded the Gospel up to this point, Jesus’ answer is quite surprising. There is, however, a textual problem. Some manuscripts of medium quality read, “You say that I am.” If this were the original reading, it would still constitute an affrmative answer but a much less emphatic one more in line with the “messianic secret.” The textual evidence definitely favors “I am,” and “You say that I am” probably is a scribal assimilation to Matt 26:64 and Luke 22:70. Since Jesus’ fate was sealed, secrecy was no long necessary. Both Jesus and Mark may have intended “I am” to be more than an affrmative answer. It may be an allusion to the divine name in Exod 3:14.

“The Mighty One” is another substitute for Yahweh. The “right hand” is the place of honor and reward in Oriental society. Jesus’ affrmation in the last part of the verse combines Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13. “You will see” does not necessarily refer to physical sight. It could refer to realization. Jesus probably meant that his opponents would realize that he was the Son of Man in the apocalyptic sense, that he was God’s Son and would sit by his side, and that he would return for judgment. He did not imply that he would return during the lifetime of those present. In fact, some commentators do not think the word “coming” refers to the second coming at all but to Jesus’ exaltation. However little or much the high priest may have understood Jesus’ words, Mark knew that his readers/ hearers would. Ultimately the words were intended for Christians.

14:63 Tearing a garment was usually a sign of grief or alarm (Gen 37:29, 34; 2 Kgs 18:37; 19:1; Jer 41:5; Acts 14:14). In the case of the high priest, it was an offcial act expressing indignation that later at least was regulated by the Mishna.

14:64 Some do not think that claiming to be the Messiah would have been considered blasphemy. This may well be so, but claiming to be the Son of God (in the most intimate sense), claiming to be the Son of Man (in the supernatural sense), claiming to sit at God’s right hand, predicting a return from heaven, and using the divine name “I am” could and probably would have been considered blasphemy. Mark may have intended some irony by leaving the impression that the high priest committed blasphemy by reviling the Son of God.

The last part of the verse reads like a formal vote of condemnation. The word “all” need not be taken literally. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, if present, would not have voted to condemn and then the next day identified themselves with Jesus by burying him. Of course they may not have been “invited.”

10 14:65 In constructing this verse, Mark used words and ideas from 1 Kgs 22:24; Isa 50:6; 53:3–5; Mic 5:1. There may also be an allusion to Isa 11:1–4, which evidently was interpreted by some rabbis to mean that the Messiah would be able to judge by smell without sight or hearing. To “prophesy” in the present instance refers to Jesus’ being able to identify those who struck him despite the blindfold. At least this is the way Matt 26:68 and Luke 22:64 and some manuscripts of Mark (by way of assimilation to Matthew and Luke) interpret it. Again there is irony, for the guards taunted Jesus to prophesy because they thought he could not. What they did to him fulfilled his own in 10:34 and the in Kings, Isaiah, and Micah (above).

The final statement in the verse is found only in Mark and is somewhat awkward Greek (literally, “The guards received/took him with slaps/blows,” RSV; cf. NASB). The NIV conveys the right idea in good English.

11