Jesus - Bearing a Right Witness (Even Under the Most Difficult Circumstances) - Mark 14:53-72

Sermon Series: Spare Me the Details - Just Give Me Jesus

Have you ever watched any of the numerous crime shows that come on TV?  If you have, chances are that you have probably seen a scene in which those investigating a crime arrest a suspect, take the individual into an interrogation room, and then begin to seek further information from the suspect.  On some occasions the individual they arrest isn’t the prime suspect but rather a person that has worked alongside the prime suspect.  In these instances the individuals investigating the crime will often try to get the partner in crime to give them more information about the prime suspect so that they can make an arrest and then have the necessary testimony for a conviction in a criminal hearing.  Think about the tactics they typically use to get information out of the arrested suspect.  Typically they don’t a very passive approach.  They don’t sit across the table, provide the suspect with a soft-comfortable chair, and patiently wait for the arrested individual to offer any information that he or she thinks might be helpful.  In almost every situation the individuals investigating the crime try to make things uncomfortable, difficult and scary for the arrested individual.  They place them in an uncomfortable chair in a very uncomfortable room.  They threaten the individual with what will happen to him/her if he/she should refuse to cooperate, and they do so in angry, powerful, and authoritative tones of voice.  And what often happens under the pressure is that the arrested suspect provides the investigators with more information, forgetting about any loyalty or faithfulness which may have been promised to the prime suspect.  The arrested suspect begins to focus more on what he/she believes is in his/her best interest and looks for ways to preserve and protect himself/herself – and in the process the prime suspect is made much more vulnerable.  Jesus is by no means a criminal or a prime suspect in a criminal investigation.  But have you ever considered that we are daily bearing witness to Him.  And because Jesus is no longer on earth to defend Himself, much of what we portray Jesus to be is assumed to be true by those who don’t have a personal relationship with Him or intimate knowledge of Him.  Every day our words, our attitudes, and our actions are revealing something about Jesus.  And what we reveal about Him can vary greatly depending upon the perceived danger of the situation.  In safe environments many of us are willing to bear right testimony of Jesus.  But when we face perceived dangers many of us stop focusing on bearing a right testimony of Jesus and instead start looking for ways to preserve and serve ourselves.  This begs the question then, “How important is bearing a right witness for Jesus?”  And in this section of Mark’s gospel we’ll see just how important bearing a right testimony of Jesus is and how Jesus modeled that for His followers.

As we pick up the text this week we find Mark using his literary sandwich technique for a third time in chapter 14.  This time the narrative making up the ends of this sandwich will be the narrative about Peter’s actual denial, with the narrative of Jesus’ first trial and self-defense inserted in the middle.  Our text begins with verses 53 and 54.  There we find that the crowd that showed up in Gethsemane to arrest Jesus led Him to the home of the high priest.  John 18:13-14 identifies that man as Caiaphas.  History tells us that Ciaphas’ home was located only about 6 tenths of a mile southwest of Gethsemane.  And it was there at Ciaphas’ home that members of the Sanhedrin had come to seek accusations against Jesus that would lead to His death.  Mark tells us in verse 53 that Peter had followed Jesus and the arresting crowd from a distance, and that he had actually made his way into the courtyard of the home.  (It’s worth noting here that while Mark’s mention of the ‘distance’ Peter kept is a reference to his physical distance from Jesus and the arresting crowd, it will also foreshadow Peter’s commitment to Christ in the coming verses.)  Typical Roman homes during this time period had an open atrium that they called a courtyard enclosed by the rooms of the surrounding house.  It was here that Peter had made his way and verse 54 says that “he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire.”  Peter had fled from Jesus as the arrest was taking place, but shortly after had managed to catch up with the group as they were headed to Ciaphas’ home and appears to have been able to make his way unnoticed into the courtyard.  We shouldn’t find this very hard to believe.  Estimates of the size of the arresting crowd vary, but even the most conservative estimates would suggest that there were a few hundred people there.  Late at night, in the dark, and a crowd of at least a few hundred people mean that Peter probably could have quietly moved up to the house and into the courtyard without drawing much attention to himself.  While we will focus more on Peter’s denial later in this blog, there is certainly one significant point to make in regards to Peter in these first two verses of our text this week.  James Edwards says that in these verses we find that “Peter has forsaken a discipleship of costly following (8:34) for one of safe observation.”  Do you see that in the description of Peter in these first two verses?  The one who had pledged in the safe environment of the Mount of Olives that he would not deny Jesus and that he would even be willing to die for Jesus has first fled (vs. 50) and is now only willing to watch what happens to Jesus from a distance.  It appears at this moment that Peter is more interested in preserving and protecting himself than he is denying himself, taking up his cross, and following Jesus. (Mark 8:34).

Mark interrupts his narrative about Peter in verse 55 and begins to focus on the trial of Jesus.  Now there are a few important things to make note of before we jump heavily into the text.  Primarily that the Sanhedrin is so intent on finding Jesus guilty of a crime deserving of death that James Edwards says they “grossly violate Jewish jurisprudence as stipulated in the Mishnah.”  Let’s consider a few examples.  First, in cases seeking capital punishment, reasons for innocence were to be given before reasons for conviction.  We don’t see this taking place in Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial.  In fact we don’t see any opportunity at all to present reasons for innocence.  Second, in cases seeking capital punishment, if a person was found guilty it required a second hearing the following day.  In addition, both of these hearings were to be held during the day and they were not to be heard the day before a Sabbath or the day before a Jewish festival.  We don’t see this taking place in Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial.  Third, in cases where an individual was found guilty of blasphemy, the individual was to be put to death by stoning and then the body was to be hung from a tree.  And fourth there is no evidence that the Sanhedrin was to formally meet and hear cases in the home of the high priest.  Their prescribed meeting place was supposed to be in the temple.  So as we are reading Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial it’s important to note that almost every single detail Mark records of Jesus’ trial is in violation of the rules which the Mishnah prescribes for capital cases.

Verse 55 says that, “the chief priests and the whole Council [i.e. the Sanhedrin] were seeking testimony against Jesus to put Him to death.”  If these men were just acting as prosecuting attorneys there would be nothing wrong with this sentence.  But the role of these men was more like that of judge than of an attorney.  They were supposed to hear testimonies of witnesses and to make a judgment in regards to the evidence presented.  But these men had already determined what they wanted their judgment to be and they were looking for evidence that would enable them to make that judgment.  To their disappointment, Mark writes beginning at the end of verse 55 that, “they found none.  For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimony did not agree.  And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, ‘We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’’  Yet even about this their testimony did not agree.”  While the Sanhedrin was looking for evidence to condemn Jesus to death, Mark says that they were not able to find any.  Jesus lived a perfect life without any sin.  He was righteous and blameless in every way.  There was absolutely nothing from His life or ministry that could be used to bring condemnation upon Him.  So with no real evidence for conviction and sentencing they resort to planting and hearing false testimony.  Mark doesn’t tell us who these false witnesses were or how they showed up at this hearing – all we know is that they were present and were there for the purpose of bearing false witness so that the needed evidence for Jesus’ conviction would be available.  Mark doesn’t even record what all of the different testimonies were about.  He only provides his readers with the content of one of the accusations that was being made against Jesus.  Some of the men bearing false witness were saying that they heard Jesus proclaiming that He, Himself, would destroy the temple and in three days time build another that was not made with human hands.  Now first of all, this was a very serious accusation to make.  We have talked before about the importance that the temple played in Judaism – it was the center of Jewish worship.  (And for the Sanhedrin it was a symbol of their power, for they were the ones given the responsibility to oversee this extraordinary structure and to lead the thousands upon thousands of people who would travel to that place each year to worship.)  The accusation that Jesus said He, Himself, would destroy that place was very serious then, for Jesus would have been doing more than threatening to destroy a physical structure, He would have been threatening to bring down Judaism and those in power as well.  In regards to this accusation there is no clear biblical evidence that Jesus ever said that He, Himself, would destroy the temple.  We do have sufficient biblical evidence that Jesus proclaimed He would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days.  So these men seem to have exaggerated the truth of what Jesus said in order to create a scenario in which they could convict Jesus of a serious threat (though still not one deserving of death).  The great irony is that while these men spoke falsely in regards to what Jesus actually said, the truth of their accusations is right on.  In dying on the cross and making atonement for the sin of all humanity, Jesus became the author of a new covenant.  No longer are people to offer sacrifices or keep the law in order to create reconciliation with God.  Those things didn’t even provide salvation or reconciliation for the Jews.  When Jesus took our place on the cross He dealt a death blow to the temple as the means by which someone comes to God for forgiveness.  Sacrifices and the shedding of the blood of animals were no longer needed for cleansing.  The blood of the perfect Passover Lamb had been shed and so there was no longer any need for sacrifice.  There was also no longer any need for a mediator between people and God.  There was no longer a need for a Sanhedrin for Jesus had become our intercessor.  Jesus, did in fact single-handedly destroy the temple.  And three days later when He rose again, He became the new temple, not made with human hands.  No longer were people to come to God for forgiveness by means of the physical temple – now people were to come to God through Christ and faith in Him.  The testimony of these false witnesses is incredibly unique.  It was false testimony in that we have no evidence that Jesus actually said He would destroy the temple and could not be used to convict Him, but the truth of the statement was amazingly accurate and foretold well what Jesus would really do through His death and resurrection.

In verse 60 the high priest, Ciaphas, stands – probably out of frustration, as it appears the hearing is not providing the needed evidence – and begins question Jesus, Himself.  The false witnesses have not provided collaborating evidence and so it appears that Ciaphas will now try to provoke Jesus to say something that will bring condemnation upon Himself.  Ciaphas first attempts to get Jesus to respond to the false accusations that have been made against Him.  But Jesus remained silent and gave no response.  In remaining silent Jesus was both affirming His innocence but also fulfilling the imagery of the Messiah in Isaiah 53:7 which says, “He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth.”  After getting no response from Jesus, Ciaphas then makes His own accusation – an accusation which again is full of irony.  Most of our Bibles have Ciaphas asking a question in the last part of verse 61, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”  That is helpful for us, the readers, because what Ciaphas says is intended to be a question.  But when we examine Ciaphas’ words as Mark records them in the Greek we find that Ciaphas did not actually ask in question form.  Rather, what he did was make a statement using the tone of a question, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”  From the very mouth of one of the men seeking to destroy Jesus and one who becomes responsible for His very death comes an incredibly accurate statement regarding Jesus’ identity.  Jesus is the Messiah and He is the Son of God.  And to this statement Jesus finally breaks His silence.  But Jesus doesn’t answer Ciaphas’ implied question with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘that’s right.’  Jesus uses two far more powerful words when He replies, “I am.”  In that moment Jesus not only professed to be the Messiah and the Son of God, but He professed to be God, Himself.  In the second book of the Bible, Exodus, we find God speaking to Moses through a burning bush and telling Moses to go to Egypt and to announce to Pharoah that God wanted him to let the Israelites go.  But fearing what Pharoah might say, Moses asked God what he should say if Pharoah questioned him in regards to who sent him.  In other words, Moses asked God what His name was.  And in that account God answers Moses saying if Pharoah asks who sent you, tell him ‘I Am.”  God tells Moses that His name is ‘I Am’ and all throughout the OT this is a name that is revered as holy and set apart for One only – God, the Father.  Jesus answers Ciaphas’ implied question by both affirming what Ciaphas had said and taking the very name of God for Himself at the same time.  But that’s not all that Jesus says in His response.  Jesus goes on to say, “and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”  Not only does Jesus affirm His divinity by affirming Ciaphas’ statement and taking the very name of God, but He also makes reference to where His rightful position is.  Jesus’ presence on earth is only temporary as He accomplishes the will of the Father.  But His rightful position is seated at the right hand of God the Father.  After His death, resurrection, and ascension that is the position that Jesus will occupy for the rest of eternity, reigning along with God the Father, at His right-hand.

In verses 63 and 64 we find that Jesus’ response wasn’t misunderstood by Ciaphas.  In those verses we see Ciaphas tearing his clothing – something done when people were overcome with emotions such as grief or anger.  He also remarks, “You have heard His blasphemy.”  Now remember that the Jews thought the Messiah would be a human descendant of David who would deliver the Jews from their oppressors and restore their power and prominence as a nation.  If Jesus was simply proclaiming to be the Messiah and that is all that Ciaphas understood Him to be saying, Jesus would not have been guilty of blasphemy.  One would be considered guilty of blasphemy only if an individual ascribed God’s honor to himself or equated himself with God.  This is what Ciaphas understood Jesus to be saying and this is what Jesus is condemned for before the Sanhedrin.  The second part of verse 64 tells us that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus as being deserving of death.  Then in verse 65 some of those who were part of the Sanhedrin began to spit on Jesus and covering His face began to punch and beat Him, as well as mock Him.  And after they had finished treating Jesus this way they turned Him over to the guards who apparently continued the beating that the Sanhedrin had begun.

The major emphasis of these verses (especially in light of where they are positioned within the narrative of Peter’s distance from Jesus and denial of Jesus) seems to be that the right testimony of Jesus is more important than His own comfort.  Jesus endured a wrongful arrest, an unwarranted trial, and ridicule and beatings all because He would not waiver on His true identity.  The Sanhedrin had recognized Jesus’ claims to forgive sin, to regulate temple practices, and to avoid their traps and trick questions.  They were unwilling to consider the possibility that He was indeed God’s Son and so they saw Him only as a threat to their power and authority that needed to be destroyed and done away with.  If avoiding conflict and His own personal comfort was all Jesus valued then Jesus could have submitted to their demands in any of their previous encounters.  Jesus could have avoided the conflicts altogether by moving outside of Jewish territory and proclaiming His ideas among the Gentiles.  But Jesus was unwilling to sacrifice His identity or His mission for the sake of His own personal comfort.  If the right testimony of Jesus was more important than His own comfort that should clue us in to the value that God and Christ place on accurate portrayals of themselves.  There is no hope in one who is like a robber.  There is no power or authority in a self-proclaimed rabbi.  There is no forgiveness from one who is just a man.  And there is no salvation in one who is a false teacher.  If Jesus had chosen comfort over right testimony then His identity would have been reduced to one of just a man who, as a self-proclaimed rabbi, had no real power and no real authority to impart forgiveness or grant salvation.  But in remaining steadfast in His resolve to uphold His identity and a right testimony of Himself, He demonstrated how important a right testimony was for the hope of sinners.  And this leads us to the second point of the text which comes to light in the narrative surrounding Peter . . . that the right testimony of Jesus is more important than our own comfort.

Mark returns to the narrative about Peter in verse 66.  As he does, Mark sheds a little more light on Peter’s surroundings.  Peter is still in the courtyard of Ciaphas’ home, but Mark adds that he was “below in the courtyard,” suggesting that the room in which Jesus was being tried was on a second floor that overlooked the courtyard.  Mark tells his readers that while Peter was in the courtyard a servant of the high priest, a girl, entered into the courtyard and while she was there she both noticed Peter warming himself by a fire and recognize him as one of Jesus’ disciples.  Verse 67 says that she spoke to Peter and said to him, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.”  At that moment Peter probably sensed the danger of discipleship and probably continued to fear what those individuals might do to him if his identity was truly revealed.  So instead of bearing a right witness for the sake of Christ, Peter actually chooses the route that he believes will protect him and serve him the best.  Verse 68 tells us that Peter actually denied any knowledge of Jesus saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.”  Then Mark says that Peter moved out of the courtyard and away from the people around whom the accusation had been made to another part of Ciaphas’ home – the gateway.  Mark’s record of Peter changing locations is very strategic and important, for not only was Peter moving away from apparent danger, his move to the gateway also moved him farther away from Jesus.  Mark tells his readers that while Peter was there he heard the rooster crow for the first time.  The servant girl seems more than a little convinced that Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples.  Perhaps she wanted some of those present to acknowledge what she recognized because Mark says that while Peter was in the gateway the same servant girl saw Him again and began saying again to those who were nearby that, “this man is one of them.”  Peter, still filled with fear, believing to be in the midst of a very difficult and dangerous situation, again chooses not to bear right testimony, but instead denied the accusations (vs. 70).  This was his second denial of Christ in what was probably just a matter of a few minutes.  And here we as readers recognize that Peter’s change in position had not resulted in a change of heart.  He was farther removed from Jesus, but no less fearful when the danger followed Him to the gateway.  The accusations of the servant girl had apparently gotten the attention of some of those who were hanging around in the courtyard and the gateway because Mark writes that “after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, ‘Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.’”  Then for the third time, fulfilling the very words that Jesus had spoken to Peter, he denied Jesus saying, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”  Verse 72 says that immediately after this third denial Peter heard a rooster crow and that he “remembered how Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.’”    

James Edwards says it well when he wrote, “While Jesus was undergoing a formal trial above [i.e. the room over-looking the courtyard], a trial of different sorts was taking place below.”  Peter’s discipleship was being put on trial.  The one who had declared that he would not fall away and the one who had said that he would not deny Him, is given three opportunities to acknowledge his relationship with Jesus and to bear right witness of Him in a place where, apart from Jesus’ own testimony of Himself, the only witness that is being given about Him is false witness.  But in each of the three opportunities Peter chooses denial.  One of Jesus’ three closest disciples, the one some would even argue is the chief of all the apostles, fails in difficult situations to bear witness to Christ. 

Consider this - Peter’s distance from Jesus and denial of Jesus did not communicate that Jesus is One that we can hope in.  It did not communicate that Jesus is One who can save.  Peter’s distance from Jesus and His denial of Jesus communicated that Jesus was powerless to do anything significant in difficult situations.  Guys – that is not the person that Mark has portrayed in his gospel.  That is not the Son of God who has power and authority over both the physical world and the spiritual world.  That is not the Son of God who has granted new life to those who were physically dead and new life to those who were spiritually dead.  Peter failed miserably to bear right testimony to who Jesus was and chose rather to observe from a safe distance and deny Jesus when actually confronted. 

What about us guys?  What is our position right now?  What is more important to us right now?  Are we more concerned about our own comfort and as a result content to not engage the world and culture around us because we’re afraid of how they might treat us?  Would we rather sit safely in our church buildings and in the comfort of our Christian circles and just observe from a distance what is taking place in our communities?  Or are we more concerned with bearing a right testimony of the person and the works of Christ – even if it means we might face great discomfort?  If we keep our distance and protect our own comfort, what are we really communicating about Jesus?  Is it an accurate portrayal of Jesus?  Is it the message that we want to communicate about Jesus?  Rightly bearing witness of Jesus might put us into difficult positions.  It might put us in uncomfortable positions.  But making sure that we rightly bear witness of Jesus and rightly communicate who He is, is even more important than our own personal comfort.  We have to be resolved, just like Jesus was, to rightly bear witness of Him, even in the most difficult of situations. 

Small Group Questions for Discussion

1. Read Mark 14:53-54.  As we worked through these two verses we made a point to notice the distance which Peter kept between Him and Jesus.  We also considered the quote from James Edwards which said, "Peter has forsaken a discipleship of costly following for one of safe observation."  Do we ever resemble Peter in these verses, keeping our distance from Jesus?  And if so, how?  What are we doing to make sure that we stay engaged in discipleship rather than distancing ourselves from Jesus and His work and just observing what is taking place around us?

2. Read Mark 14:55-65.  As we examined these verses we emphasized the point that the right testimony of Jesus is more important than His own comfort.  Why was Jesus so passionate about making sure His witness and testimony of Himself was an accurate one?  Why would Jesus not sacrifice His identity for His own comfort.  

3. Read Mark 14:66-72.  As we examined these verses we emphasized the point that the right testimony of Jesus is more important than our own comfort.  In these verses we saw Peter as a bad example of this.  Peter, when he found himself in the midst of a difficult and dangerous situation, opted to protect and preserve himself, rather than bear a right witness for Jesus.  What did Peter communicate about Jesus when he did that?  Is that the message that Peter wanted to proclaim?  Do we ever fail to bear a right testimony of Jesus when we find ourselves in difficult or uncomfortable situations?  What does that look like?  What are we communicating about Jesus when we do that?  Is that the message we want to proclaim?  What do we need to do in order to bear a right testimony of Jesus and in order to proclaim the right message about Him?

4. What step of faith does this passage of Scripture require us to take as individuals and as a small group?  How do we work this out on mission?