Injustice System – Pt. 2

If God’s people would take their
Bibles once again and turn to John chapter 18 John chapter
18 And I’ll throw you a bit of a curveball in a moment here
John chapter 18 we began looking at it last week Jesus is Beneath an injustice system that is so
corrupt and so just completely out of control
that last week it was hard to even wrap our heads around what
was taking place. John is the only one that records
the particular episode of Jesus being taken before Annas. who
at one point had served as high priest, a very powerful man,
a man who usurped authority by calling Christ to him first. And we know that Annas is really
the puppet master pulling the strings, and we looked at his
particular tactics last week. in verses
12 through 24 of John’s Gospel. And we notice that in this first
look at the injustice system, where Christ is literally in
the teeth of falsehood, we saw Annas’ repeated assertions of
unjust authority. The first thing we saw was this
completely unauthorized summons. He was not authorized to call
Christ to himself, and yet he did. We saw also that as this
summons was issued he was also interrogated unlawfully in verses
19 through 21. Annas had no authority over this
man, he had no justification for quizzing Christ, for interrogating
Christ, and yet he did. We saw also that there was this
unethical use of force where a temple guard reached up and
slapped the Lord. And here’s Annas who, even as
a former high priest, had plenty enough power to put an end to
it and even to punish the soldier as would have been appropriate.
He didn’t. Unauthorized summons, an unauthorized or unlawful interrogation,
an unethical use of force, and finally, and this is the part
that I want to draw you to, look at verse 24, an unsanctioned
transfer. Verse 24 just reads, so Annas,
who repeatedly throughout this section is called the high priest,
he’s referred to as the high priest. So Annas sent him bound
to Caiaphas, the high priest. And so we really begin to see
that Annas is the one behind it all. Annas is the one plying
his unauthorized authority over Christ, but he sends him now
to Caiaphas, who is his son-in-law. And that’s really where we pick
up the account, but in order to do that, I want to take us
to the Gospel of Mark. If you would, to the Gospel of
Mark and to verse 53. is not done with him, and I believe
that Annas is involved throughout these proceedings. He just fades
to the background because he is the unofficial leader. The official leader is none other
than his son-in-law Caiaphas, and we see his role begin to
emerge in verse 53 of Mark’s Gospel, chapter 14. They led
Jesus away to the high priest and all the chief priests and
the elders and the scribes gathered together. Peter had followed
him at a distance right into the courtyard of the high priest
and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at the fire. Now the chief priests and the
whole council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus
to put him to death for they were not finding any. For many
were giving false testimony against him, but their testimony was
not consistent. Some stood up and began to give
false testimony against him, saying, We heard him say, I will
destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will
build another made without hands. Not even in this respect was
their testimony consistent. The high priest stood up and
came forward and questioned Jesus saying, do you not answer? What
is it that these men are testifying against you? But he kept silent
and did not answer. Again, the high priest was questioning
him and saying to him, are you the Christ, the son of the blessed
one? And Jesus said, I am. And you shall see the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the
clouds of heaven. Tearing his clothes, the high
priest said, What further need do we have of witnesses? You
have heard the blasphemy. How does it seem to you? They
all condemned him to be deserving of death. Some began to spit
at him and to blindfold him and to beat him with their fists
and to say to him, prophesy. And the officers received him
with slaps in the face. The injustice system continues. We saw Annas’ injustice, repeatedly
those episodes of injustice that Christ received at his hand
Hands which should have shown him mercy and kindness, protection,
showed him only injustice. Caiaphas is no different. Caiaphas
is the son-in-law of Annas. And we saw last week, learning
about Annas, what tremendous power he had, because not only
five of his own sons followed in the priesthood, that as one
was deposed, another would just fill his shoes. Even his own
son-in-law, Caiaphas, fills in. Perhaps Caiaphas being one of
the worst of this band, We’ve seen that Jesus’ trial essentially
can be divided into two main parts. There is the religious
portion. As we saw, it began under Annas. It proceeds, as we see this morning,
under Caiaphas. And ultimately, we’ll conclude
before the Sanhedrin officially gathered. And we’ll take a look
at that portion next week. The second major phase of Jesus’
trial is not religious, but it is, if you will, secular. This is the trial before the
Romans. And that trial includes not only
an examination before pilot, but then a brief interview before
Herod, and then a return to pilot for ultimate sentencing. It’s
not a complicated thing as you back up and begin to look at
the Gospels, all four of the Gospels, and you begin to see
a narrative unfold. Not one of the Gospels tells
each of those six episodes. Each of the Gospels adds to the
overall picture. And for that purpose, I thought
that as we began to consider the injustice system last week
under Annas, I thought it was only appropriate to consider
the injustice system as it continues under Caiaphas. And this is where
John’s gospel, if you will, falls away or falls dark on this portion. He doesn’t address the portion
of Caiaphas at all. He allows the synoptics to stand
on their testimony, filling in only what they had omitted in
providing the testimony about Annas. So I want to look today
at Caiaphas and at the injustice system that Caiaphas brings. We are in the second phase of
the ecclesiastical, the religious trials. Having concluded the
trial of Annas, now Jesus is taken before Caiaphas, the high
priest. One characterized Caiaphas in
very unflattering terms. One historian said he was rude
and a sly manipulator, an opportunist who did not know the meaning
of fairness and justice. Bent on having his own way, he
did not shrink from shedding innocent blood. What he himself
ardently craved for selfish purposes, he made to look as if it were
the one thing needful for the welfare of the people. Well,
that’s pointing specifically to Christ and the whole situation
here referring to Christ. He made it appear as that this
is what the people really needed was the crucifixion of Christ.
We’ve already said how right Caiaphas was. He prophesied and
he didn’t even realize it when he said that it was imperative
that Christ die for the people. that doesn’t absolve Caiaphas
of his own guilt. And so that he could bring about
Christ’s execution, his condemnation, which was really brought about
by his own envy and hatred of Christ, he degenerates into this
unjust, manipulative trial. It can hardly be called such.
We come into Mark chapter 14, and I wanna park here in Mark.
We’ll look elsewhere a couple of times this morning. But in
Mark chapter 14, I would even give this a subtitle of High
Crimes of the High Priest. High crimes are crimes committed
by those that well ought to know better. These are the ones that
ought to know the law and live by the law and exemplify the
law. High crimes of the high priest
and I see 12. Now don’t panic. Some of them
fall very quickly and we’ll get through it. Don’t panic. As there
was already a movie title that stole another title that I had
in mind, I have referred to these as the despicable dozen. The
despicable dozen. And wait till you see how terrible
these things are. Go to Mark, if you would, verse
53. They led Jesus away to the high
priest and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes
gathered together. Let me just paint the picture
for you of this scene. When it says all the chief priests,
that would have included all of the former high priests and
their attendants. So the commander of the temple
would have been there, the very one who likely was present at
Christ’s arrest. The steward of the temple, the
one that kind of served as the sergeant of arms, if you will,
he was in charge. He might have read from Robert’s
Rules of Order or something similar. And then there were the temple
treasurers that were there to collect fines if need be. The
elders would have been there, as Mark says. The wealthy and
influential laymen of the community. And then the scribes. These are the middle-class Pharisees
that fill in and ultimately comprise the Sanhedrin. Those three groups
primarily, the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes,
that’s what made up the Sanhedrin. And in that sense, this is a
very official meeting. If you’re looking at verse 54
and you’re wondering why I haven’t tackled Peter yet, we will. We’ll look at Peter And I’ll
just forecast for you, there is us in all of Peter’s foibles,
and we’ll see that in the weeks to come. Glide down, if you would,
to verse 55. Now the chief priests and the
whole council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus
to put him to death. They were not finding any. Here they are assembled in an
official capacity as the Sanhedrin the ruling judging body of the
Jewish Church and it dramatically presents this evening meeting
hastily called And yet everybody seems to be there and ready for
this meeting. We know that Christ was just
arrested. The trial before Annas couldn’t
have lasted very long, 30 minutes to an hour as I will propose
here in a moment. And now he is ushered into this
official meeting and everybody just happens to be awake at 1,
2 o’clock in the morning. The first of the despicable dozen
of these offenses, these high crimes that we see against Caiaphas
is this midnight trial. By midnight, I’m not suggesting
literally 12 midnight. We know that Christ gathered
his apostles on the 14th of Nisan. which would have been Thursday,
April 2nd, A.D. 33, Anno Domini, the year of
our Lord, 33. One of the frequent things that
I’ll mention to someone if I’m talking that they don’t believe
that Jesus Christ existed, I just have them check the date on their
newspaper because something pretty profound happened 2018 years
ago. It’s the year of our Lord. On
that very evening, After sundown when the Passover began somewhere
between 530 and 630 Jesus engaged remember in that foot washing
that scene that the very poignant scene where he’s washing his
own disciples feet as a model to them of service during the
course of that and whose feet he even washed Judas is Presented
as betraying him and even outed to a few of the Apostles Jesus
then initiates, institutes the Lord’s Supper, which supper we
still celebrate. He gives then this lengthy upper
room discourse, essentially recorded there in John 14, 15, and 16. And then Jesus offers up this
high priestly prayer in John 17. All of that in the upper
room. All of that is going on that evening, and so I’m suggesting
that anywhere from 5.30 to 6.30 this evening begins, and I think
it’s not unreasonable to think that somewhere around 11 or 11.30,
perhaps even midnight, is when Jesus and his disciples go out
into the Garden of Gethsemane. They couldn’t have been in Gethsemane
very long, perhaps an hour, and then there’s an arrest, which
the episode is very dramatic, but it couldn’t have taken a
long time. He’s taken immediately before Caiaphas. That couldn’t
have taken a long time. As I told you a moment ago, 30
minutes, maybe an hour, not long. And then he’s taken before Caiaphas.
And so I would suggest to you that probably around 1 or 2 a.m.,
he’s hauled in before the high priest, the official high priest,
the one that not only bears the title but the authority, Caiaphas,
he’s hauled in before him around 1 or 2 in the morning. And amazingly,
all the chief priests are awake and all the elders are present. Everybody’s there. Everybody
who’s anybody is there and available. The only problem is, is that
this was a midnight trial. One or two in the morning, and
yet, as the Jewish law itself detailed, no trial for life was
allowed during the night. No capital trial, no trial where
there was even a possibility of the death penalty. And yet Jesus
was hauled in and tried unofficially, mind you, at one or two in the morning. The Jewish law said that no process,
no legal process could even take place on Sabbaths or feast days
or even on the eves of them. That’s important to know. because
we are literally on the eve of the Passover. Jesus and his disciples
had celebrated it already. In civil cases, one note that
Alfred Edersheim adds is that in civil cases, no process was
carried on in the month of Nisan, which is exactly the month in
which they find themselves. One other rule was laid out,
no process. Least of all, such a one might
be begun in the night, not even in the afternoon. Any capital
trial was never supposed to be carried on overnight. They wanted
sharp minds. They wanted very attendant witnesses. They wanted an alert judge in
those hours. And so the ordinary court hours
were just after the early morning services until the time of the
late evening meal, much like our nine to five. And a verdict
of capital punishment could never be pronounced at night. That’ll
become important to keep in the back of our minds. No conviction
was even allowed at night, much less a capital conviction. But that wasn’t Caiaphas’ only
crime. I’ve suggested to you that there
are 12, and I’ve told you that we’ll move along. Let’s move
along. Point two. The second high crime of the
high priest was the location of the trial. The location of
the trial was the high priest residence, and to us that doesn’t
seem like a big deal. John 18, 24, Annas the high priest
sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. It doesn’t record
that he was taken anywhere but Caiaphas’ quarters. Verse 53
of Mark’s gospel says that they led him away to the high priest
and all the chief priests, elders, scribes gathered together. Now
I wouldn’t want to host this party in my home. But Caiaphas
for his own rude purposes was willing to. The high priest residence
was not the proper place for a formal meeting and Caiaphas
knew that and knew it well. And it just proves the hastiness,
the overzealousness of Caiaphas and his entire band. Historian noted that the trial
and the sentence of Jesus in the palace of Caiaphas would
have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law and procedure. In other words, it was absolutely
unthinkable to have a trial in the high priest’s home residence. Such cases, he continues, could
only be tried and capital sentence pronounced in the regular meeting
place of the Sanhedrin, that would be what’s called the council
chamber, not here in the high priest palace. The rules don’t make any difference
to Caiaphas. He could care less about the
rules because he’s got one goal and one goal only in mind. Third,
I told you we’d move quickly. The third high crime that we
notice of Caiaphas in this despicable dozen was what one historian
titled the trial of a capital charge on the day before the
Sabbath. I told you this already. Look at verse 55. Now the chief
priest and the whole council kept trying to obtain testimony
against Jesus to put him to death. It’s not as if they just stumbled
onto this case. Their whole purpose from the
very start was to kill Christ, was to put him to death, was
to have him ultimately executed. As I’ve already pointed out,
according to the Pharisaic law, no hearings in a case involving
capital punishment could even be initiated, couldn’t even start
the case, start the trial. on the eve of a major festival.
Well, here they are on the eve of the most prominent festival
of all, the eve of Passover. So these proceedings against
Christ, this trial, it violates the very specific rules that
the Jews had for trials. In fact, the Talmud even goes
on to state that regarding the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin was
to save, not destroy life. The Sanhedrin should have been
the most merciful of all of the courts of the land. Not the most
despicable, not the one most likely to set aside all rules
and to go for the juggler. Their failure To get evidence here just seems
to incense them. Look at verse 55 again. The chief
priest, the whole council kept trying. This was an ongoing effort. They initiated it. They would
not relent. They were going for it. They
were doing everything they could to get evidence, testimony against
the Lord. We’ll look at that more in a
moment. But look at the end. Just as they kept trying to obtain
testimony, they were not finding any. They were, in as much as
they were zealous, they were failures. Four. Point four. The fourth high crime
of the high priest was the suborning of witnesses. I don’t think there
are many lawyers among us, and few of us have ever been in a
court, so this was a learning effort for me. But for this,
Matthew’s gospel was quite helpful. If you would just keep your finger
in Mark, we’ll do this a couple of times. If you would just flip
over to Matthew’s gospel to chapter 26, and we’ll learn about the
suborning of witnesses. You don’t have to flip back to
Mark. Keep your finger in Mark, turning
to Matthew 26. Here’s what Mark recorded. Mark
just recorded the chief priest, the whole council, kept trying
to obtain testimony against Jesus to put him to death. The testimony
they were hoping for was going to be testimony worthy of calling
Christ to account, so much so that it would be worthy of death. But Matthew points out something
very fascinating if you look at verse 59. Now the chief priest
and the whole council kept trying to obtain false testimony against
Jesus. They were just trying to get
somebody, anybody, a pair of them to say something false against
the Lord so that they could crucify him. That
is suborning of witnesses. The very people who are supposed
to be these neutral, impartial justices were the very ones that
were bending the rules, no, utterly destroying the rules in what
is the legal name for this is suborning of perjury or suborning
of a witness. And what it points to is persuading
or manipulating or somehow even perhaps purchasing someone to
twist their story to align with another so that they can hang
a crime on a particular individual. To induce, said one, to induce
secretly to do an unlawful thing. to commit perjury. And the penalty, in case you’re
curious, the penalty in the Jewish system of law for suborning of
witnesses, for suborning of perjury, the penalty was death. Caiaphas is already broken the
rules. He’s already called himself into
account for legal crimes that would have been, for which he
could have been tried and found guilty. But there are eight more. Number five. Not only in the
list of high crimes of the high priest is there this midnight
trial whose location was wrong on a day before a high feast
and a subornation of witnesses. Number five, the sentencing before
the trial even begins. If you would, back to Mark’s
gospel. to verse 55. You’ve already read it. You know
what I’m going to say when I get there. The chief priest of Hope
Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put
him to death. It’s a crime. They haven’t even
heard the evidence. They haven’t even secured the
witnesses yet, but they already have the sentence in their hip
pocket. They already have the goal in
mind. As one pastor said, it had been
decided long ago that Jesus must be put to death. The motive behind
the decision was envy, beginning to lose their influence on the
people. And the fact that Jesus had denounced
and exposed them publicly filled them with rage because this new
prophet had laid bare their hidden motives. in his cleansing of
the temple. And because of that, they were
thirsting for blood. They wanted Christ dead. And they made it absolutely clear.
There’s a little verb tense here. We’ll do a little bit of grammar
here briefly. It’s called the imperfect. We’ve
already seen it. I’ve already pointed it out.
They kept trying. It means they started and they
had not yet stopped. They were perpetually trying
to find witnesses to line up so that they could put him to
death. It implies this anxious and continued search. They were
leaving no stone unturned to find a witness that could justify
their claim of death. It was a continued, ongoing effort
and likewise, was their failure. They were not finding any. Seeking witnesses at all for
a judge wasn’t his role. That wasn’t Caiaphas’ role at
all and shouldn’t have been. He shouldn’t have been seeking
witnesses. He should have been standing,
letting others present the case. Others should have come with
witnesses already in hand. So this is not only an unofficial
trial, it’s an illegal trial, it’s an illegal meeting. Six,
we’re already halfway there. We’re already halfway there.
These things just begin to pile up. These high crimes of the
high priest. Number six in the despicable
dozen was an insufficient number of witnesses. Jewish law made
it very clear that you had to have at least two witnesses and
those two witnesses had to agree. So you can add a seventh here
very easily. Conflicting testimony of witnesses.
The law stipulated that you had to have at least two witnesses
and those witnesses testimony, no surprise here, had to line
up They had to agree. Otherwise you have no case at
all. There was no lack of witnesses.
It says that many came forward. How sad is that? Many came forward
with criticisms of Christ and stories about Christ and willing. Can you imagine? Willing to break the 10th commandment,
one of the Ten Commandments, by bearing false witness. To
come before a court about, of all people, Christ, and to say
something false? And it says that many were doing
that. Many people at this invitation of the Sanhedrin wanting so desperately
to be in good with the Sanhedrin. Perhaps the Pharisees, perhaps
the Sadducees in their own party had their own set of witnesses.
Everybody wanted something and everybody was willing to stand
against Christ in doing it. And so their false testimony,
this over and over again, inaccurate, improper testimony just speaks
of the treachery of Caiaphas and the treachery of this whole
Sanhedrin court. The law was very clear. The Old Testament law required
the exact agreement of two witnesses, Deuteronomy 17. On the evidence
of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put
to death, he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one
witness. They didn’t have a case. We’ll see in a moment that that
doesn’t matter. Deuteronomy 19, 15, a single witness shall not
rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or sin which
he has committed on the evidence of two or three witnesses. A
matter is confirmed. It is absolutely vital to get
your facts straight, to dig in, to hear the evidence. And Caiaphas
wasn’t willing to do that. I love the way one put it. It
is harder to agree on a consistent lie than it is to tell the simple
truth. And they couldn’t find two people willing to do that.
Amazing. Number eight. We’re flying alone. Number eight
in this list of despicable dozen high crimes is a deceitful witness. I already pointed to this, but
Matthew goes on to say that two witnesses stood up and it seemed
like their story was finally going to line up. Mark just says some people stood
up, some witnesses. Undefined numbers stood up verse
57 and began to give false testimony against him saying now We don’t
know whether this indicates that the the judges Caiaphas and the
Sanhedrin knew that these were false witnesses But what they
were saying was false and they’re about to be found out We heard
him say This is first-hand witness kind of stuff. This is the kind
you want. Now, Caiaphas probably leaned back in his chair. This
is what he’d been waiting for. Eyewitness, ear witness accounts. We heard testimony of this man. Yes, go on, young man. We heard
him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands. And in
three days, I will build another made without…” Well, Caiaphas
has got to be just over the moon now, because he’s got him. He’s
got him. This is a guy who is wanting
to destroy the very thing that is the center of Judaism, the
Holy of Holies itself, and the temple, and all its grounds. When it says we, that’s the suggestion
is that they both were there, they both heard Jesus say these
things. And what’s even more plain here,
when it says, I will destroy this temple, that demonstrative
pronoun, it essentially puts Jesus at the scene as if Jesus
pointed to the temple grounds. I will destroy this temple. Now, mind you, It had been almost
three years since Jesus said anything like this. And it’s
entirely possible that maybe these guys’ minds got a little
fuzzy over time. But it doesn’t take very long
before their story begins to unravel between them. And before they are found to
be not only false, but contradictory towards one another, deceitful
witnesses making up the facts as they go. Listen to Mark. In Mark’s account,
he says, we heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with
hands and in three days, I will build another made without hands. This is the only thing that lines
up with it. When Jesus said these words in
John chapter 2, Jesus said, destroy this temple and in three days
I will raise it up. The only words that line up are
this temple in three days. Everything else by this first
witness is embellished, added, superfluous, false. I will destroy, Jesus didn’t
say that. I will destroy this temple made
with hands, Jesus didn’t say that. Jesus didn’t talk about
a temple made with hands. In three days, I will build another
made without, Jesus didn’t say that either. Matthew’s gospel records, perhaps
even of the other party testifying, He adds that the witness said
that Jesus claimed, I am able to destroy the temple. And not
just any temple, the temple of God. Now he’s really on a roll. And to rebuild it in three days.
Jesus never made any of those claims. that he personally would
destroy the temple that he was not only able to destroy it but
to rebuild it and that in three days that he personally would
rebuild the temple that he contrasted this temple made with hands with
this three-day temple made without hands Jesus never said any of
that and so these witnesses likewise
were found to be false The judges don’t consent to that, but they
do seem to kind of brush off their testimony. They can’t really
use this testimony as tempting as it is. Look at verse 59. Not even in this respect was
their testimony consistent. These were deceitful men. They
were liars, willing to embellish the truth against Christ for
their own end and their own gain. They knew that if they could
hang this crime on Christ, that he was done. To rail against
the temple, to say deceitful and it would be considered sedition,
insurrection, to suggest that you were going to destroy the
temple, the temple of God. There’s a ninth despicable crime
Number nine is direct interrogation by the high priest, which is
just totally out of line. Look at verse 60, the high priest
stood up, he’s done, right? He’s done with the lawyers, he’s
done with the whole, he’s done with everybody else, with witnesses,
he’s done, all he wants, he wants Christ and he’s gonna take him
himself, finally. The high priest stood up, came
forward, questioned Jesus, saying, do you not answer? What is it that these men are
testifying against you? What he’s trying to do is goad
Christ into saying something, anything that he can incriminate Christ over. They had completely failed to
establish any charge that would stick against Christ, and that
had produced this very uncomfortable situation, and so This arrogant
high priest stands up and takes the floor himself, walks right
to the center, walks right up to the accused, perhaps wagging
his finger in his face. And Jesus stands silent. Verse 61, He kept silent and
did not answer. And people, we know that this
was not the silence of guilt. We know that silence, as little
kids, right, when we’re caught doing something wrong. This wasn’t
the silence of guilt. This wasn’t the silence of shame,
where you have nothing to say in the face of such accusations. This wasn’t the silence of insolence,
as if Christ didn’t respect Caiaphas’s authority. Caiaphas was out of
line here in standing up as one faithful pastor said, this is
the silence of innocence. This is the silence of integrity.
This is the silence of Christ and his faith in his heavenly
father. It’s an echo of so many Old Testament passages. most
of those prophetic of Christ. I am like a mute man who does
not open his mouth, Psalm 38. Isaiah 42, he will not cry out
or raise his voice nor make his voice heard in the street. This is Christ, the gentle Savior. We know of Christ from Peter.
We know of Christ’s silence even here in this scene when Peter
says, You have been called for this purpose. Since Christ also
suffered for you, leaving you an example to follow in his steps,
who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth,
while being reviled, he did not revile in return. While suffering,
he uttered no threats. Boy, if there was ever, with
nine indictments already against Caiaphas, Wouldn’t Christ have been justified
to call him on that very moment into account? Sanhedrin had no right to arrest
Christ, no right to hold him, no right to have this midnight
trial, no right to have the high priest stand up and begin to
accuse him, interrogate him. Look again at the passage, again
the high priest was questioning him and saying to him, are you
the Christ, the son of the blessed one? Matthew’s gospel says that
he put him under oath. I adjure you by the living God. Now we know that Christ had presented himself as the
Messiah, and presented himself as the Son of Man, the Son of
God, on many different occasions, to many different people. He
made no secret of the fact that he was
sent by the Heavenly Father. Over and over again, John 8,
John 10, repeatedly throughout John’s
Gospel, Christ is presented as coming from the Father and going
to the Father. So now Jesus is going to declare
it with the utmost clarity. When Caiaphas is just about to
lose his mind. He says, I adjure you by the
living God, are you the Christ, the son of the blessed one? And
Jesus simply says, I am. Jesus finally breaks His silence. He had maintained His gracious
silence up to this point, and He finally answers in a way
that left absolutely no doubt. Peter had declared that Jesus
was the King. Thousands had acclaimed Him as
such when He came in to Jerusalem. But never so openly
had Christ declared it as now. And he said, I am. I am the Messiah. I am the son of God. And you shall see the son of
man sitting at the right hand of power. Coming with the clouds
of heaven. There will be a time where the
role is reversed, Jesus says, where I will be sitting as judge. and you will be on trial. There’s a 10th. A 10th despicable crime of Caiaphas
was this dramatic incitement. This guy is an actor. And he
seizes the moment in this really ridiculous, dramatic fashion. Look at verse 63. Tearing his
clothes, the high priest said, What further need do we have
of witnesses? He finally thinks that he has
him. You’ve heard the blasphemy. How
does it seem to you? The high priest was forbidden
to tear his clothes except on one occasion in the face of proven
blasphemy. In that case, Christ would be
judged worse than just a false Messiah. He has declared himself
to be the Son of God, which to any Jew would have been blasphemy
if it could be proven false. And so immediately Caiaphas just
turns the question to the committee. Right? That’s one way to absolve
yourself of guilt. Let the committee have a vote.
The blasphemy is assumed. There is no proof of the blasphemy. There is no challenge to what
Christ has said. He just calls for a vote. I call the question, says Caiaphas. I’m going to absolve myself of
this deal. What do you men think? He’s a
coward. There’s an 11th despicable crime
that’s committed here. A sentence on the first day of
the trial was absolutely forbidden in Jewish law. The Sanhedrin had no power to
pronounce a death penalty at night. They
had no authority to carry out the sentence. And so, in a twist
of manipulation and further crime, they just call a second meeting,
a daybreak. And they ratify their decision
to put Christ to death there. They believe that he has incurred
this capital penalty. And even though they pass the
sentence here, They know they can’t execute it. They know they
can’t get away with it. They know that others are watching,
the Romans most chiefly. And so, they know what the sentence
is. They declare the sentence, but
they’re gonna formalize it in the morning. What hypocrisy. What utter hypocrisy. And that
makes what happens in verse 65 just almost seems superfluous.
The abuse of the accused, as we saw last week, that slap in
the face that Jesus took, that stung us, didn’t it? Shouldn’t
it? It’s hard to even read. But now
after all these crimes and all this falsehood and all these
lies, this really just seems, we know where we’re headed. Christ
has already been condemned. We know that he’s going to be
crucified. But the abuse of the accused
wraps it up. And for Caiaphas, the high priest,
to stand by and watch this is perhaps the highest of all the
high crimes. Some began to spit at him and
to blindfold him and to beat him with their fists and to say,
prophesy. And the officers received him
with slaps in the face. This was commonplace treatment
for a prisoner that was held by the Romans or held by some
other heathen court. This was not standard operating
procedure in a Jewish religious trial. There were only a couple
occasions that were even recorded in Old Testament scripture that
would even countenance this kind of behavior. If your brother
died and you refused to take his wife, there was a procedure
for this that involved her spitting in your face for refusing to
take her as a wife, to carry on your brother’s name. This
was the ugliest of all punishments, but it was prophesied of Christ.
Isaiah 50, I gave my back to those who strike me, my cheeks
to those who pluck out the beard. I did not cover my face from
humiliation and spitting. This is only the beginning, really. We’re only in phase two of the
first portion of Christ’s trial. We’re only in phase two of the
religious portion. There still is phase three. the
official trial of Sanhedrin with a rubber stamp, what they’ve
already decided, what they had decided before they ever went
to trial. And then they’ll send him to
the Romans, to the heathens, to be tried. People, this is our Savior. This
is Jesus Christ, our Savior, who paid for your penalty. And
we’ve said it all the way along, that it wasn’t just the cross.
But it was all the indignities that he faced, all of the rude
and ungodly treatment that he received for us. Isaiah was right. He was oppressed. He was afflicted, yet he did
not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter
and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers. So He did
not open His mouth. He did not open His mouth for
you. He did not fight against these false systems. He did it for you. He endured all this for His church, for the lost. He endured all this for sinners.
Would you examine your heart before him? O merciful God, what injustice
the Lord Jesus endured. Lord, none of this caught him
by surprise. He knew when he was arrested that he would go
first before Annas and then before Caiaphas and face all of these
Injustices at the hands of one who should have known the law,
treated him accordingly. What injustice Christ faced.
And we know that he did it for sinners. It wasn’t just to hang
on the cross. It didn’t just happen in a vacuum.
There was a lead up. There was hatred. There was betrayal.
It was injustice. Lord God, for those of us who
have already placed our faith in Christ our Savior, may we
walk away knowing this morning what great cost, what incredibly
great cost our salvation came at Christ’s hands. Lord, we know that he redeemed us at a countless cost. as our hymn
said this morning. But we know also, Father, that
we begin to see, we begin to count the cost, we begin to see
just how much Christ endured to pay the sin of sinners. For
those who are in Christ, who have placed their faith in Christ,
may we walk out having counted the cost that we would reply
with a life that measures up. For those who do not know Christ,
for those who have not placed their faith in Christ, this is
the Savior. This is Almighty God who created
heaven and earth and everything in it, including the very men
who are submitting Him to such indignities and injustice. Jesus
Christ endured all that. To pay the sin of sinners. He offers it freely. But it came
at a tremendous cost. We humble ourselves before you.
We pray, do your work in the hearts of those who do not know
Jesus Christ as their savior. It’s in His glorious name that
we pray. Amen.