The Beating of Christ

[Asyncritus]

THE BEATING OF CHRIST​

This part of the history begins with an undesigned coincidence – stamping at least two marks of truth on to the account.


Mark 14.60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

Jesus’ silence infuriates the high priest, who is forced to play his last trump. But Mark gives no reason why Jesus suddenly replies, whereas He had been silent up to this point.


62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Why did He suddenly think it necessary to make a reply? Mark gives no reason, but Matthew fills the gap in our understanding:


Matt.26. 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

This is the Oath of the Testimony, to which any Jew was forced to reply, because failing to do meant automatic assumption of guilt.


There was nothing to be gained by silence now, and so He speaks.


But Mark’s truth, and Luke’s, is evidenced by the uncontrived absence of the reason for Jesus breaking His silence in their accounts. It is only when Matthew fills in the gap that we see the reason for His speaking now.

A similar point is raised by the Matthew account:


Matt. 26. 67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

Which is a strange question.


If someone is hitting you in the face, it is more than likely that you would see his face, and know who it was. But the question is asked, and Matthew does not give any reason for it.


The other gospel writers tell us why:


Mark 14. 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
Luke 22. 64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?


He couldn’t see who it was that was hitting Him. Hence the question.


Can I ask you guys to hold off commenting till I put up the next 2 instalments of this study? Thanks.

 

[Asyncritus]

The Beating of Christ Part 2

Mk 14.64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

The death penalty has been passed. The prisoner now has no human rights entitlement left, and now receives the 'treatment'.

It makes one cringe to think of the details given by Mark, written mercifully briefly as they are.

65 And some began to spit on him,

The scene has changed. The judges were sitting, the prisoner standing, and the 2 witnesses also 'stood up' to testify.

Now some of these venerable men, deeply respected pillars of Jewish society, stand up, rush forward, to spit in His face and engage in a bit of sport. The spectacle degrades them, far more than it does the Lord.

But there He stands, hands bound behind Him, spittle dripping down His face,

and to cover his face, blindfolded Him in order to mock His claims to be a prophet, to disorientate Him, to conceal where the next blow was coming from

and to buffet him,

The Amplified says to strike Him with the fists. This was a savage punching exercise, with no holds barred - His face, ribs, kidneys, abdomen were all soft, exposed, defenceless targets and they made full use of them. It would not be surprising to learn that He was knocked down in the process, and dragged Himself up again to face another barrage of blows.

and to say unto him, Prophesy:

The mockery began in earnest now. His face is covered, so He cannot see the punchers and the derogatory shout tell us who smote thee goes up.

Among these men and the 'officers' present were skilled torturers who knew where and how to hit in order to inflict the maximum pain and least visible injury - because He had yet to go presentably before Pilate.

and the officers received Him with blows of their hands (margin: strokes of rods)

The 'received him' uses the word 'to throw with no concern for where the object lands'. They flung Him round the encircling mob, and 'received Him' - caught Him on the way, with heavy slaps of the hand, and with rods.

As Micah had said so long ago: 5:1[...] they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

How long this went on for, we are not told - but it would not be surprising to learn that Jesus' jaw was dislocated, teeth loosened, and eyes blackened. Which would easily explain why He said so little after this. The pain was too great.

And still, no vengeful words escaped His lips.

The lesson this teaches is unbearably poignant, and it takes Peter, who was down below in the courtyard, no doubt hearing the uproar in the council chamber, to draw it out for us.

1 Pet. 2.19 A man does a fine thing when be endures pain, with a clear conscience towards God, though he knows he is suffering unjustly.

20 After all, it is no credit to you if you are patient in bearing a punishment which you have richly deserved! But if you do your duty and are punished for it and can still accept it patiently, you are doing something worthwhile in God’s sight.

21 Indeed this is your calling. For Christ suffered for you and left you a personal example, so that you might follow in his footsteps.

22 He was guilty of no sin nor of the slightest prevarication.

23 Yet when he was insulted he offered no insult in return. When he suffered he made no threats of revenge. He simply committed his cause to the One who judges fairly. JB Phillips.