14:53-65 – The trial of Jesus before
the Sanhedrin reveals the guilt not of the man on trial, but of the judges.
Instead of seeking to ascertain the truth of what Jesus had said and what he
meant by it, they instead begin with a desire to have him condemned and
sentenced to death. Some of this, no doubt, was due to his public rebukes of
many of their practices; some of it was certainly due to their envy of the
crowds of religious seekers that he was attracting. But something even more inflammatory
was going on: the priests and the Sanhedrin had clearly heard in Jesus’
teaching a proclamation that threatened the very core of their religious
system. He had been speaking out about the end of the Temple, of its
destruction and of his act of replacing it with a new, spiritual temple. This,
in fact, is the only bit of content from the witness testimony of the trial that
Mark records for us (vv.57-58), so it must have been important. We must
remember that the Temple was the absolute heart of Jewish religion at that
time, particularly for the sect of Sadducees (whom most of the priests were
aligned with), and so Jesus’ proclamations against the Temple and his act of
kingly authority in cleansing the Temple courts were perceived as an
existential threat to the priests’ way of life and to the very fabric of
Israelite religion. But, because of disagreeing witness testimonies, they
couldn’t make any capital charge stick against Jesus. So the high priest
challenges him directly to answer one of the rumored identity-claims that had
been circulating about Jesus: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
(v.61) In phrasing the question this way, the high priest is probably not
implying the same sort of theological content that we understand in the title
of “Son of God”; rather, he probably had in mind a common designation of a
messianic figure, much as Israel’s kings, like David and Solomon, had
occasionally been referred to in such terms, in a wholly symbolic manner. Jesus’
answer, however, goes far, far above and beyond such a simple conception of “Son
of God.” Mark depicts Jesus as replying directly, and in terms that led
directly to the blasphemy charge: “I am.” The fact that this two-word phrase is
isolated, and that Jesus didn’t say, “Yes, I am the Messiah,” but instead used
it as a standalone response, is a clear indicator that he is claiming the
divine name for himself, YHWH, the great “I AM” who revealed himself to Moses
in the burning bush. And just to make sure that the priests haven’t missed his
point, Jesus then makes it unmistakable—he is claiming to be “the Son of Man,”
the divine figure from Daniel’s vision (Dan. 7:13-14), who is coming on the
clouds of heaven, enthroned with the Ancient of Days/Mighty One, and to whom
all nations will render worship (see Dan. 7:14). The high priest clearly
understands what Jesus is claiming here, because is reaction is one of having
heard the highest sort of blasphemy. Presumably he would not have reacted this
strongly if Jesus was just making a case for being a human messiah, a “Son of
God” in the symbolic manner of the old kings. But Jesus is claiming to be God,
and the priest understands that quite clearly. This, in the eyes of Jewish
religious jurisprudence, was a crime worthy of death. A further point is worthy
of reflection, as we seek to apply this passage. There are many times in the
Christian life where we sinfully put our motives first, where we seek to corner
God into doing or saying things such that we can do what we wanted to do in the
first place—must as the priests are doing here. There are even times when we
might accuse God—perhaps for failing to answer a prayer in the way we wanted,
perhaps for a perceived absence of his presence in a time when we needed him.
Like Jesus at his trial, God hears our accusations and sees all our hidden
motives, and to all these things, he simply proclaims the truth beyond all
truths—that he is God alone.