14:53 The high priest in view here was Caiaphas. Interestingly Mark never mentioned him by name. He was the high priest that the Romans had appointed in 18 A.D., and he served in this capacity until 36 A.D.
This was an unofficial meeting of the Sanhedrin since Jewish law required that official meetings take place during the daytime. It transpired before dawn on Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan, a feast day. Normally the Sanhedrin did not conduct hearings of this type on a feast day. The Jewish leaders probably met at this unorthodox hour because the Romans conducted their civil trials shortly after sunrise. The Sanhedrin wanted to deliver Jesus over to Pilate for a hasty trial before public sentiment built in favor of Jesus. Normally the Sanhedrin did not pass sentence on an accused capital offender until the day following his trial. They made an exception in Jesus' case. Usually the Sanhedrin met in a hall on the west side of the temple enclosure.358However now they met in Caiaphas' house or palace (Luke 22:54). "All"the Sanhedrin may mean every one of its 71 members or, probably, all that were necessary for a quorum, at least 23.359
14:54 This notation helps the reader understand that Peter was in the high priest's residence throughout Jesus' trial there. It prepares us for the account of Peter's denial (vv. 66-72) that happened while the Sanhedrin was examining Jesus. It also helps us appreciate the fact that Peter's desertion of Jesus was only temporary. The synoptic evangelists did not mention that another disciple accompanied Peter into the courtyard (John 18:15). The officers would have been the temple police since the Roman soldiers would not have guarded the high priest's palace.
14:55-56 Even though this hearing, or grand jury investigation, took place at night, the Sanhedrin found witnesses against Jesus. It seems that they had been planning their case for the prosecution carefully. However the witnesses, who testified separately in Jewish trials, contradicted each other. Consequently their testimony was useless (cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15).
"It is harder to agree on a consistent lie than to tell the simple truth."360
14:57-59 These verses provide a specific example of what Mark just described generally. Evidently the witnesses misunderstood Jesus' statements about the destruction of the temple (Gr. naos, temple building) of His body (John 2:19) and the future destruction of the Jerusalem temple (13:2). Anyone who destroyed a temple in the ancient world was subject to capital punishment.361This was evidently one of the most serious charges against Jesus (cf. v. 61; 15:29).
14:60-61 Apparently Caiaphas decided to question Jesus hoping to get Him to incriminate Himself since he could not get two witnesses to agree against Jesus. Jesus did not need to respond to the high priest's first question. No one had offered any real proof against Him.
"His [Jesus'] resolute silence loudly declared to the Sanhedrin His disdain for their lying efforts to establish a charge against Him."362
Then Caiaphas, trying a new strategy, asked if Jesus was the Messiah. "The Blessed One"is a synonym for God that the Jews used instead of the holy name of God.363The popular Jewish concept of Messiah was that he would be a human descendant of David. Caiaphas was not asking if Jesus claimed to be God, only a human Messiah.
"In the formulation the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One,' the second clause stands in apposition to the first and has essentially the same meaning. In Jewish sources contemporary with the NT, son of God' is understood solely in a messianic sense. Jewish hopes were situated in a messianic figure who was a man."364
14:62 Previously Jesus had veiled His messiahship because publicly claiming to be the Messiah would have precipitated a premature crisis (cf. 1:43-44; 8:29-30; 9:9; 11:28-33; 12:12). Now He openly admitted His messiahship because the time for crisis had arrived. Matthew may have given us Jesus' exact words (Matt. 26:64) and Mark their substance. Jesus clarified that He was not just a human Messiah but the divine Son of Man. The passages He claimed to fulfill predicted His enthronement in heaven following His resurrection (Ps. 110:1) and His return to earth with God's authority to establish a worldwide kingdom (Dan. 7:13-14; cf. 8:38; 13:24, 26; Rev. 1:7). As such He was claiming to be the Judge of those who sat to judge Him. Jesus knew that this confession would seal His conviction.
14:63-64 Rending one's garments expressed indignation or grief (cf. Gen. 37:29; Judg. 14:19; 2 Kings 18:37). It had become the high priest's traditional response to blasphemy (cf. Acts 14:14).365However it was illegal for the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. 21:10). The hypocrisy of the religious leaders is clear throughout their trial of Jesus. The Jews regarded blasphemy as any serious affront to God, not just speech that reviled Him (cf. 2:7: 3:28-29; John 5:18; 10:33). The Mosaic Law prescribed death by stoning for blasphemers (Lev. 24:14), but this was not bad enough for Jesus. Jesus had foreseen this and had predicted death at the hands of the Gentiles as well as the Jews (10:33).
14:65 Having judged Jesus guilty, some of the Sanhedrin members vented their anger by attacking Him bodily. The temple guards present joined them in beating Jesus. Spitting and hitting were traditional Jewish ways of expressing repudiation (cf. Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 30:10; Isa. 50:6). Even today spitting in someone's face is one of the grossest forms of personal insult. Evidently they blindfolded Jesus and challenged Him to identify His assailants because of a belief that Messiah did not need to see but could judge by smell (Isa. 11:2-4).366The Old Testament predicted this type of abuse for Messiah (Isa. 53:5, 7-8, 10). Peter recorded that through all this suffering Jesus did not protest or retaliate (1 Pet. 2:21-23; cf. Isa. 53:7).
