The Trial of Jesus

[steve53]

Did anyone happen to see “The Trial of Jesus” that aired on the History channel a few nights ago?

It was a repeat of a program that originally was shown 04/08/04.

It’s several days later and I’m still disturbed by what I saw.

From what I gathered from the interviews with college professors and divinity school theologians, the apostasy in the church is apparently being taught!
Time and again the message seemed to be that the Gospels aren’t reliable. The authorship of the Gospels was even called into question! :ohno

I’m still trying to sort out my thoughts on this show ….:scratch

[Sing4Him]

Hi Steve-- I have not seen this. Maybe this will help with some info for you:


Jesus on Trial


The Illegal, Unjust Trials of Jesus--Part 1


Introduction

Matthew 26:57-66 is the record of the illegal, unjust trials of Jesus. I want to lay a foundation so we might understand how unfair they really were. In spite of their nature, those trials demonstrate Christ's perfect majesty.

A. The System of Justice

The Jewish people have prided themselves on their sense of fairness, equity, and justice--and rightly so. They have laid a foundation of justice that has benefited the world. The system of justice practiced in America traces some of its origins to the Judaic justice system, as do many other equitable systems around the world.

The Jewish system of jurisprudence was predicated primarily on one Old Testament passage. Deuteronomy 16:18-20 says, "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not distort justice. Thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a bribe; for a bribe doth blind the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous. That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." That is God's standard for judgment and justice: local judges judging the people with fairness and righteousness, never distorting what is true, never being partial, and never taking a bribes. Throughout the history of the Jewish people, that standard was the basis of their system of jurisprudence.

1. The Sanhedrin

To practically apply Deuteronomy 16:18-20, the nation formed local councils in any region where one hundred and twenty men served as heads of families. That large a community could support a synagogue as well. The local councils became known as Sanhedrin, which is a Hebrew transliteration of a Greek word meaning "sitting together." Each Sanhedrin was made up of twenty-three men who sat together to make judgments and decide civil and criminal issues. An odd number was necessary so that there could always be a majority in any close decision. The twenty-three men were chosen from the elders of the village, and they acted as judges and jury in all matters. (Figures come from Simon Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists [Jersey City: Frederick P. Linn, 18881], p. 579).

2. The great Sanhedrin

a) Its attributes

The great Sanhedrin ruled in Jerusalem, the capital city and religious center of Israel. It was composed of seventy men plus the high priest. Twenty-four were chief priests, twenty-four were elders, and twenty-three were scribes. This council was the final court for appeal. Anyone who believed that a verdict rendered at a lower level was unfair could appeal to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Under the right conditions they could gain a hearing. The great Sanhedrin was the highest ruling body in Israel.

(1) Wise justices

Some of the men who served on the court were chosen from the local councils on the basis of their wisdom. Others served their apprenticeships as pupils of Sanhedrin members. After first learning about court procedure they were then invited to serve as judges themselves.

(2) Procedural guarantees

A person under prosecution had three guarantees.

(a) The right to a public trial

There could be no secret trials. Every trial was to be held in public so no one could be framed and then be penalized or executed. In that way the judges were constantly under the scrutiny of the populace, who were able to attend and know what was going on. All fair courts today have maintained the same procedure.

(b) The right to self-defense

There was to be a defender--someone who provided a defense for the accused.

(c) The right to hear witnesses

No one could be convicted of anything unless proven guilty by two or three witnesses. A solid case could be built only on the evidence of more than one witness.

Those basic rights remain with us today, and are guaranteed by our court system. Those rights are important to know as we examine the trials of Christ. As you will see, the Sanhedrin violated all three plus many others.

The Fate of a False Witness

Bearing false witness was a serious crime, and punishment for it was swift. Anyone who gave false testimony was punished with the very penalty the accused would have received. Suppose you came into the court as witness to a murder. When your false testimony was found out, you would receive the death penalty yourself. Deuteronomy 19:16-19 says, "If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, who shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquiry; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother, then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother. So shalt thou put the evil away from among you." People were discouraged from giving false testimony by the penalty they would incur if they were caught.

(3) Prescribed executions

In any case deserving a death sentence, the execution could not be carried out until the third day. (The first day was considered to be the day the sentence was rendered). The council would reconvene on the third day to reaffirm the death sentence and execute the accused that same day. The second day was necessary to be sure that all the evidence had been examined and that there was no further need of testimony.

The witnesses whose testimony brought about the death penalty had to cast the first stones in the execution (Deut. 17:7). That was another reason the witness wanted to be certain his testimony was true. If not, he would be guilty not only of purgery, but also of murder. Our Lord had that in mind when the scribes and Pharisees wanted Him to make a judgment regarding a woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-5). He told them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (v. 7). That would have been the procedure at a criminal trial had she been found guilty. Those witnesses would have been responsible to cast the first stones. But Jesus gave them a condition: they could do it only if they had never sinned.

Peeking Inside the Courtroom

Simon Greenleaf was a famous professor of law at Harvard University in the last century. His book The Testimony of the Evangelists (Jersey City: Frederick P. Linn, 1881) edited by Simon Greenleaf contains a section written by an eminent lawyer of the French Bar on the Sanhedrin trial procedure. This excerpt will give us some indication of what should have transpired in the trial of Christ.

1. The witnesses

The lawyer writes, "On the day of the trial, the executive officers of justice cause the accused person to make his appearance. At the feet of the Elders were placed men who, under the name of auditors, or candidates, followed regularly the sittings of the Council" (p. 581). The council was audited by objective men, who scrutinized all procedures to verify that they conformed to justice and equity. The lawyer continues, "The papers in the case were read; and the witnesses were called in succession. The president addressed this exhortation to each of them: `It is not conjectures, or whatever public rumour has brought to thee, that we ask of thee; consider that a great responsibility rests upon thee: that we are not occupied by an affair, like a case of pecuniary interest, in which the injury may be repaired. If thou causest the condemnation of a person unjustly accused, his blood, and the blood of all the posterity of him, of whom thou wilt have deprived the earth, will fall upon thee; God will demand of thee an account, as He demanded of Cain an account of the blood of Abel, Speak'" (pp. 581-82). That concept filtered down to present-day courts through the years. In U.S. courts the witness is required to place his hand on a Bible and to swear before God to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." The Jewish courts laid the bloodguiltiness on the witness who brought false testimony against a man in a case deserving the death sentence.

Furthermore, the lawyer writes, "A woman could not be a witness, because she would not have the courage to give the first blow to the condemned person; nor could a child, that is irresponsible, nor a slave, nor a man of bad character, nor one whose infirmities prevent the full enjoyment of his physical and moral faculties. The simple confession of an individual against himself, or the declaration, however renowned, would not decide a condemnation" (p. 582). That's important to note: Jewish law stated that no person could testify against himself, and on the basis of that single testimony be held guilty. Similarly U.S. court systems protect against self incrimination. The lawyer adds that the Sanhedrin stated, "`We hold it as fundamental, that no one shall prejudice himself. If a man accuses himself before a tribunal, we must not believe him, unless the fact is attested by two other witnesses'" (p. 582).

The lawyer also writes, "The witnesses were to attest to the identity of the party, and to depose to the month, day, hour, and circumstances of the crime. After an examination of the proofs, these judges who believed the party innocent stated their reasons; those who believed him guilty spoke afterwards, and with the greatest moderation. If one of the auditors, or candidates, was entrusted by the accused with his defense, or if he wished in his own name to present any elucidations in favour of innocence, he was admitted to the seat, from which he addressed the judges and the people. But this liberty was not granted to him, if his opinion was in favour of condemning" (p. 582). Someone other than a judge could speak only if it was in behalf of the accused's innocence, and not in behalf of his guilt. They wanted to avoid an emotional response that could bring about a guilty verdict.

2. The judgment

The lawyer writes, "When the accused person himself wished to speak, they gave the most profound attention. When the discussion was finished, one of the judges recapitulated the case; they removed all the spectators; two scribes took down the votes of the judges; one of them noted those which were in favour of the accused; and the other, those which condemned him. Eleven votes, out of twenty-three, were sufficient to acquit; but it required thirteen to convict" (pp. 582-83).

3. The punishment

The lawyer continues, "If a majority of votes acquitted, the accused was discharged instantly; if he was to be punished, the judges postponed pronouncing sentence till the third day; during the intermediate day, they could not be occupied with anything but the cause, and they abstained from eating freely" (p. 583). The judges fasted, which indicates they would never hold a trial of this nature the day before a feast day, otherwise they would be fasting on a feast thus violating Jewish law. That was another violation in the trial of Christ. The judges were to refrain "from wine, liquors, and everything which might render their minds less capable of reflection" (p. 583).

The lawyer details the following procedure: "On the morning of the third day they returned to the judgment seat. Each judge, who had not changed his opinion, said, I continue of the same opinion and condemn; any one, who at first condemned, might at this sitting acquit; but he who at once acquitted was not allowed to condemn. If a majority condemned, two magistrates immediately accompanied the condemned person to the place of punishment" (p. 583). They executed him on the same day they sentenced him. That was consistent with Ecclesiastes 8:11, which states that when there is swift punishment, there will be decreasing crime.

The lawyer continues, "The Elders did not descend from their seats; they placed at the entrance of the judgment hall an officer of justice with a small flag in his hand; a second officer, on horseback, followed the prisoner, and constantly kept looking back to the place of departure. During this interval, if any person came to announce to the elders any new evidence favorable to the prisoner, the first officer waved his flag, and the second one, as soon as he perceived it, brought back the prisoner. If the prisoner declared to the magistrates, that he recollected some reasons which had escaped him, they brought him before the judges no less than five times. If no incident occurred, the procession advanced slowly, preceded by a herald who, in a loud voice, addressed the people thus: `This man (stating his name and surname) is led to punishment for such a crime; the witnesses who have sworn against him are such and such persons; if any one has evidence to give in his favour, let him come forth quickly.'... At some distance from the place of punishment, they urged the prisoner to confess his crime, and they made him drink a stupefying beverage, in order to render the approach of death less terrible" (pp. 583-84).

b) Its abuses

Once you analyze the procedure of a Sanhedrin trial, you could easily conclude that any individual accused of a crime was safe in the Sanhedrin's hands. They had a tremendous sense of justice mixed with mercy. Built into their system were safeguards to protect the innocent party. The accused had abundant opportunity to bring in new testimony. That bearing false witness was such a serious crime acted as a good preventative. Add to that the judges day-long fast and period of reflection makes a trial before the Sanhedrin appear to be a winning proposition for any wrongly accused individual.

But the Sanhedrin never was a safe environment for Christ. In His trial the Sanhedrin violated every single law governing proper procedure in a criminal trial. As such the trial of Jesus Christ is the most unjust trial in human history. The great Sanhedrin condemned to death the only completely innocent person whoever lived. It was a mockery of justice. The axiom of the Sanhedrin was to save, not to destroy life. But that ideal was jettisoned in the case of Christ. No criminal trial was to be conducted at night, but Christ's trial was. Before condemning a criminal the judges were to fast a day before the execution, but those who condemned Christ didn't--they killed Him the same day. Witnesses were required to testify against the accused, but none were found who had truthful testimony against Christ. The accused had the right of defense, but that wasn't allowed in the case of Christ.

B. The Trials of Christ

1. Two trials

Jesus basically received two trials: a religious Jewish trial and a secular Roman trial. The Jews were an occupied people. Only Roman courts had the right to execute anyone--the Jewish courts couldn't. The Jewish leaders could condemn Jesus to death, but they couldn't execute Him. Whatever verdict they rendered in their religious trial had to be one recognized by the Romans. That is why there were two trials. The Jews had to present the evidence from their trial to the Romans. Before they would execute Christ, the Romans needed to examine the evidence against Jesus to determine if He indeed had committed a crime.

2. Three phases

The Jewish trial and the Roman trial each had three phases. So Jesus was actually involved in six different trials. The Jewish trial began when Jesus was taken to Annas. Annas sent Him to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night. The third phase took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin just after dawn in an attempt to legitimize their evil. After the religious leaders were done with Christ, they sent Him to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. After Pilate questioned Him, he sent Him to Herod Antipas, who ruled over Galilee. Herod sent Him back to Pilate, who in turn condemned Him to death. Those were the three phases of the Roman trial. Both the Jews and Romans violated rules of justice, truth, equity, and fairness, committing horrendous crimes against an innocent man.

Those series of trials led to the execution of Jesus Christ. The Jews wanted Him dead, so they had to invent a means to bring about His death. They predetermined the sentence; they just needed a crime to fit it.

Lesson

I. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONFRONTATION (John 18:12-13, 19-24)

Matthew 26:57 says, "They that laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled." While it's true that Christ was led to Caiaphas, Matthew doesn't discuss the phase of the trial that occurred first. John 18 details what happened in that first phase--the initial arraignment.

A. The Significance of the Hearing Before Annas (John 18:12-13)

"Then the band [Gk., speira--the Roman cohort, as many as six- hundred men] and the captain [Gk., chiliarchos] and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, and led him away to Annas first."

The gospels offer us a composite of the life of Christ. In a sense they are like four different paintings, each of which emphasizes different features of His life.

1. Typological

Psalm 118:27 says, "Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar." Every sacrifice was in a sense a type of Christ. He was bound even as Isaac was bound to be sacrificed (Genesis 22:9). Christ was bound as a criminal. He was about to be offered as a sacrifice for all mankind.

2. Political

The reason Christ was taken to Annas first is that apparently Annas was the brains behind the leaders' scheme to kill Christ. He despised Jesus because He was a threat to his security, power, and prestige. He resented Jesus' holiness because he was so utterly unholy. He resented Jesus' perfection because he was utterly vile. Everything about Jesus caused him anger. Of course Satan was directing Annas's plan. Annas was just one in a cast of characters being manipulated by hell.

The soldiers took Jesus to Annas's house. That was illegal because it happened at night and in a house instead of the Judgment Hall. Annas had been high priest for about a five- year span, but that had been twenty years before. His son-in- law, Caiaphas, was the official high priest that year (John 18:13).

B. The Sequence of the Hearing Before Annas (John 18:19-24)

1. Annas's circumvention of proper legal procedure (v. 19)

"The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine."

Annas wanted to know what Jesus taught, how widespread is His movement was, and who followed Him. Annas violated all sense of justice with his questions. When a person was arraigned in a court of law, he was to be told the crime of which he was accused. But Annas asked general questions about Jesus' movement in an attempt to uncover a crime. He already had a sentence; he just needed a crime to match it. This was an illegal and unjust hearing, and Jesus' answer affirms that.

2. Christ's call for proper legal procedure (vv. 20-21)

"Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them who heard me, what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said."

If Annas had a case, he should have presented witnesses and not asked Christ. According to the law, Jesus couldn't incriminate Himself. Here He called for proper legal procedure. He exposed the evil injustice of Annas. Everything Jesus taught was said openly and publicly. Plenty of people had heard Him; Annas only needed to call them as witnesses.

Annas was embarrassed and frustrated. His intentions had just been unmasked. He was no match for the infinite mind of Jesus Christ. When the tension in the air gets so thick you can cut it with a knife, someone will eventually break it, as we now see happening here.

3. An officer's conflict with proper legal procedure (v. 22)

"When he had thus spoken, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answereth thou the high priest so?"

Jesus had unmasked Annas as a violator of the laws of justice. This officer--in his desire to defend his master, who had just lost face--slapped Jesus across the face.

4. Jesus' affirmation of proper legal procedure (v. 23)

"Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?"

The Lord offered no emotional retaliation, in contrast to when Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin in Acts 23. Paul testified that he lived with a clear conscience before God (v. 1). That upset the high priest so he had one of his servants slap Paul on the mouth. Paul retorted, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (v. 3). That sounds like something I might say! But Jesus didn't react that way. First Peter 2:23 says, "When he was reviled, [He] reviled not again." The hour of His death was at hand, and He was resolute to go to the cross. He already had settled that issue back in the garden. There was nothing to be gained with an angry retort. That's why He said, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" There is no answer to that question. Jesus always knew the right thing to say.

5. Annas's concealment of proper legal procedure (v. 24)

"Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest."

Annas was finished. What could he do? It was the middle of the night. We know it was 3 [sc]A.M. since the period of cock crow ended at that time, and Peter hadn't yet denied Christ. Annas attempted a clandestine arraignment and couldn't accomplish a thing, except be embarrassed. So Jesus was sent to Caiaphas without an indictment.

The confrontation with Annas was illegal and unjust. What was illegal about it? It took place in the middle of the night. There were no witnesses. There were no charges. Annas had no legal authority--he wasn't even an official prosecutor. And his home was an improper place to hold an arraignment.

II. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONVENING (Matthew 26:57)

"They that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled."

Caiaphas was equally as wretched as Annas. He was possessive, power- hungry, and greedy. He hated truth, righteousness, and holiness. That's why he hated Jesus Christ. In the dark of night Jesus was transported from the house of Annas to the house of Caiaphas, which was located near the temple.

A. The People

The scribes and elders had been gathering together at Caiaphas's place while Jesus was at the house of Annas. Mark 14:53 says all the scribes and elders were there. However, based on Luke 23:50- 51, I suggest that at least one of them wasn't present. Now that doesn't violate the use of "all" in Mark. They were all gathered in the sense that a great number of them were present. I believe Joseph of Arimathaea was not there. Luke 23:50-51 says Joseph "was a member of the council, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their plan and action)" (NASB). He was never there to vote. But apart from Joseph the vast majority of council members, and perhaps all the rest, were prepared to convict Christ. I'm sure some of them didn't even realize what was going on. They were the pawns of Satan.

B. The Place

Luke 22:54 says they met in the house of Caiaphas. Verse 55 tells us there was a courtyard as part of the grounds. Men like Caiaphas lived in large houses because they were very wealthy. So Christ was taken across the courtyard into a large room adjacent to it.

In the courtyard some soldiers had gathered around a fire (v. 55). Matthew 26:58 says, "Peter followed him [Christ] afar off unto the high priest's court, and went in, and sat with the guards, to see the end." Peter was caught between cowardice and curiosity. He wasn't brave enough to step out for Christ, but he was concerned enough to stand in the background. It is in that environment that he denied Jesus Christ. While in the courtyard he no doubt could look through the doors or windows of the large room to see what happened as Christ was confronted by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

The law of Israel stated that no one was to be tried in any place other than the Hall of Judgment, which was located in the Temple complex. Also trials were to be held during the day. And they were to be public. The Sanhedrin did hold a brief trial at dawn in the Hall of Judgment to present some form of legal procedure to such illegal proceedings.

C. The Purpose

The Sanhedrin had to originate charges against Jesus. But that was a violation of law because the Sanhedrin could act only as judge and jury, not as prosecutor. They were supposed to investigate charges previously brought against the accused. Since Christ's session with Annas failed to exact a charge, they had no case to judge. So they had to act as prosecutors first and invent a crime before they could try it. The one thing they did have was a sentence--they just needed a crime to go with it.

Everything about the trial of Christ was illegal. It was not supposed to take place at night, or in the house of the high priest. There was no crime. The Sanhedrin was not supposed to act as prosecuter. No one was to be tried on a feast day. And bribery was not to be tolerated, yet that is how Jesus was betrayed by Judas. All the illegalities of the trial before Annas were compounded in the convening of the Sanhedrin in the house of Caiaphas.

III. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONSPIRACY (Matthew 26:59-61)

A. The Search for False Witnesses (vv. 59-60a)

"The chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death, but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none."

The council didn't want to find out the truth; they wanted to put Him to death. The only way an innocent man could be killed was to find people to lie about him. They had to be liars to convict Jesus, who was a perfect man--God in human flesh. Perfection violates nothing. There never was a crime.

So the council sought liars to do the very thing their law condemned with such ferocity. Their passions were controlled by hatred and dominated by Satan and his demonic forces. The predetermined plan of God was that Jesus die for the sins of the world, and these men were unknowingly swept up in that plan. They were actually seeking the testimony of false witnesses--the very thing they had spent their lives trying to protect people from! It is unthinkable that judges would do that, but they did. Jesus never received a fair trial. He was not condemned because of something He had done; He was condemned out of hate.

Not surprisingly, no one could give a plausible testimony. There were many people who wanted to, and I'm sure hell generated all it could, but nothing made sense. Worse than that, they couldn't find any two to agree. It is difficult for liars to agree since they have no facts to deal with. Mark 14:56 says, "Many bore false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together."

B. The Selection of False Witnesses (vv. 60b-61)

"At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days."

All they could come up with was "this fellow said." That's nothing but a generalization. Mark 14:57-58 says, "There arose certain, and bore false witness against him, saying, we heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." Look at the difference between those two testimonies. The one in Matthew claimed Jesus said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." The one in Mark's record claimed He said, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." Even they don't agree. What did Jesus actually say? John 2:19 tells us: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Verse 21 tells us He was referring to "the temple of his body." The false witnesses twisted what Jesus actually said, and of course what He meant.

The testimony of those two witnesses should never have been admitted. As mentioned earlier, a witness had to know the year, month, day, hour, and location of the supposed crime. Also, there were strict rules regarding the limitations of disagreement that could be tolerated between witnesses.

Conclusion

If I didn't know Jesus Christ was perfect and absolutely sinless, and that He was the Son of God as He claimed, this incident alone would convince me He was. Hell is running the show. Satan entered Judas. It was the hour of darkness. The braintrust of hell--Satan and his most powerful and resourceful demons--were after an accusation against Jesus. So were the Jewish leaders. When all earth and all hell, energized by supernatural resources and intelligence, couldn't find something against Jesus Christ, I know there isn't anything to find. The trials of Christ are a great apologetic for the perfection of Jesus Christ found anywhere in the pages of Scripture. If Jesus had ever done anything wrong, they would have found it. But there was no crime. Jesus was God in human flesh, and no less.

The trials were illegal. Witnesses were bribed and they misrepresented what Jesus said and meant. Jewish law never allowed for the execution of a man accused based on what he said. Jesus was allowed no defense. He suffered through an illegal confrontation with Annas and an illegal convening and conspiracy of the Sanhedrin. In spite of all that hell and the world tried, they couldn't find one thing He did that was wrong.

What a blessed Savior we have! He is perfect, and found to be so at the tribunal of evil men. Who actually was on trial that day were those who accused Jesus. They revealed themselves to be wretched, wicked, sinful, unjust men. Christ, by His very presence, identifies those who side with Satan.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2389.htm

[Sing4Him]

PART 2
Introduction

A. The Relevance of the Hour

1. For Satan

Jesus told those who came to arrest Him, "This is your hour, and the power of darkness" (Luke 22:53). It was hell's moment to do its deed. When Judas left the upper room before Jesus instituted the Lord's table, "Satan entered into him" (John 13:27). Satan energized Judas to do his evil deed. No doubt Satan and his demons also energized the high priest, the Sanhedrin, and all those involved in the execution of Jesus Christ.

a) His initial plan

Satan was now trying a new approach. Previously he had tried to prevent Christ from going to the cross. Certainly that was his plan in his first temptation of Christ (Matt. 4; Luke 4). Immediately after Jesus was baptized, Satan tried to divert Him from the cross. That may have been his plan in the garden, as our Lord sweat great drops of blood and agonized in the midst of that temptation. Satan was still trying to do whatever he could to divert Christ from the cross. He knew the cross would provide the salvation for the redeemed of all ages.

b) His secondary plan

Apparently Satan now was resigned to the fact that Jesus was going to the cross--that it was inevitable in the plan of God. So he turned his efforts toward making Christ's death on the cross so final that He could not rise again. That demonstrates both the impotence and inconsistency of Satan-- he can't do what he wants to, and he changes his plans frequently. Evil is ultimately inconsistent. That's why it's difficult for us to understand why Satan does what he does. But it appears he had energized the betrayal of Christ, and now the death of Christ. Even after Christ did rise, breaking through Satan's bonds of death, Satan spread lies that He had not risen in an effort to stop the message of the resurrection.

Satan was behind the scenes of Christ's betrayal, arrest, trials, and crucifixion. Jesus said this to the leaders who wanted Him dead: "Ye are of your father the devil .... He was a murderer from the beginning .... he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44).

2. For God

The arrest and trials of Christ also represent a holy hour--God also is at work. God intends the anger, hatred, and evil of Satan to fit within His own redemptive purpose. Christ could say with Joseph, "Ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good" (Gen. 50:20). Whatever latitude Satan has is always within the confines of God's will. So while we know it is the moment of Satan, we also remember that Christ "was delivered by the determinant counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). It is a plan that was carried out by hell but had its origin in heaven.

3. For evil men

A third party was involved in the arrest and execution of Christ: evil men. The evil rulers conspired long before to eliminate Jesus Christ. A short time after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and a few weeks before Christ's arrest, they met together and said, "This man doeth many miracles" (John 11:47). They knew He did miracles--they were of such significance and frequency that no one could deny them. But this is the conclusion they came to "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place [Temple] and nation" (v. 48). They believed all the people would begin to follow Jesus. As the Romans saw the populace moving toward Jesus, they would be worried about a revolution. Then they would react to that by taking away the Jewish leaders' positions, destroying their Temple, and wiping out their nation.

The crowd that had cried, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!" (Matt. 21:9) when He rode into the city on Monday posed a great threat to their security. That's what prompted Caiaphas to say, "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" (John 11:49-50). John 11:51 says, "This spoke he not of himself; but, being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation." Out of a mouth filled with hatred came a prophecy of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for the redemption of His people.

In the arrest and trials of Christ, we are seeing the blending of the plot of hell, the plan of God, and the hatred of evil Christ- rejecting people. But understand this: although it is the plan of God, it in no way lessens the evil of hell's conspiracy and the men who carried it out. Their guilt is not mitigated. It was the plan of God, but they willed to do it. They chose to be the compatriots of hell by their own volition.

B. The Relentlessness of the Mob

We pick up the scene in the garden of Gethsemane where the mob took Jesus captive. It is tragic in that there is a certain relentlessness about their approach. The came to take Jesus Christ, the King of glory and Son of God with a relentlessness that's actually staggering. Let me show you what I mean.

1. The potent miracles

a) A miracle of power and judgment

When Jesus went to meet the mob in the garden, the entire crowd of nearly one thousand fell down on the ground at the moment He identified Himself (John 18:6). The very power of His person knocked them to the ground as if they'd been hit by a celestial hammer. They had just been exposed to the power and judgment of the Son of the living God. Now you would think that any thoughtful person would say to himself, "This is not just another man." They all should have understood that miracle of power and judgment as a message to examine who He was. But it found absolutely no response in their hard hearts. The terrifying power that knocked them to the ground brought about no thought of the deity or lordship of Jesus Christ. As clear as it was, they bypassed that warning sign.

b) A miracle of kindness and mercy

A little later, Peter sliced off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest (John 18:10). Jesus responded to Peter's attack by calling a stop to it, and then instantaneously creating a new ear for Malchus (Luke 22:51). That was a miracle not of power and judgment, but of kindness and mercy. If you were a part of that mob and had just seen a miracle like that, you would most likely say to yourself, "Certainly one with such incredible creative power is someone to reckon with. We better stop and examine who this is." But again, they bypassed another signpost.

2. The possible conclusions

There are only two possible conclusions: one, they felt sure He wasn't the Messiah. But if they thought He wasn't the Messiah, they would have tried to prove He wasn't. The other conclusion is they were afraid He was the Messiah--they didn't want to go through an examination because they were afraid of what they would discover. They simply wanted Him out of the way. They didn't want to know if He was their Messiah or not. Why? Because they were locked into their own false religion, with the accompanying self-righteous life-style, power, and prestige. Jesus' true holiness, purity, and power threatened them and they were afraid to find out the truth. If they found Him to be the Messiah, His words had already damned them. So rather than find out the truth, they wanted to eliminate Him. If at any moment they thought He might not be the Messiah, I think they would have conducted a more thorough investigation.

The relentlessness of the religious leaders to kill Christ went beyond reality and His miracles. After the resurrection of Lazarus they said, "This man doeth many miracles" (John 11:47). They couldn't deny that; they just didn't want to face what it meant, which was their own judgment.

Mark 14:51-52 tells us a young man who had been observing the arrest was grabbed by some men in the crowd. They ripped his outer garment off and he ran away wearing only his undergarment. The narrative of that event is one way Scripture shows us the violence of the scene. This was an agitated mob. Here they grabbed someone they weren't interested in arresting, and they ripped his clothes off in their effort to seize him. This frenzied mob took Jesus captive and led Him away "as a lamb to the slaughter" (Isa. 53:7).

Review

Before the rulers had Jesus executed, they had a trial--although an unjust and illegal one. Such a trial was unusual for a people so committed to its great system of justice. Their supreme court was the Sanhedrin (see pp. xx-xx). It was built on the premise that every defendant in a trial was entitled to three things: a public trial, an opportunity to present a defense, and a conviction confirmed by at least two or three witnesses.

The Sanhedrin also followed some important laws. Any false witness would pay the same penalty as the one he witnessed against. They could not prosecute the accused; they could only try him. No court could convene at night or in any other place except the Judgment Hall. No hearing could convene in the late afternoon, lest justice be hurried to a hasty and wrongful conclusion. No convicted criminal could be executed the same day he was tried. A one-day interval was required. No execution could be held on a feast day, or the day before. All the votes were carefully counted. And no one could incriminate himself by giving testimony against himself.

The Jewish leaders violated every single one of those safeguards. They never gave Jesus a public trial; they held it privately. They didn't allow Him to make a defense--no witnesses spoke on His behalf. They couldn't find two or more witnesses to convict Him of anything. They actually bribed some false witnesses, which was contrary to their efforts of discouraging false witnesses through severe punishment. They were not allowed to prosecute an individual, yet they did that. There was no prior prosecution because there was no crime. They met in the middle of the night. They sentenced and executed Him the same day. The trial took place on a feast day. They met outside the Hall of Judgment. And they never bothered to count the votes.

I. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONFRONTATION (John 18:12-13, 19-24; see pp. xx- xx)

II. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONVENING (Matthew 26:57; see pp. xx-xx)

III. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONSPIRACY (Matthew 26:59-61; see pp. xx-xx)

Since the leaders couldn't come up with any accusation, they brought in false witnesses. They found two, but even their testimony didn't agree. The reason they couldn't bring an accusation is that Christ never did anything wrong. He was God in human flesh. He was absolutely impeccable. The leaders had decided to put Christ to death (v. 59), and now they needed to find a reason to do it. But the testimony of the two witnesses was useless, since it was based on something Jesus said. There was no way they could require death for that. The inability to find a crime frustrated Caiaphas.

Lesson

IV. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONDEMNATION (Matthew 26:62-64)

The religious leaders were in a hurry to convict Jesus before dawn-- before people began to mill around. They were afraid of His popularity with them, and of what might happen if they found out what they were trying to do to Him. They wanted to finish the trial so they could celebrate the Passover with unbloodied hands.

A. The Frustration of Caiaphas (v. 62)

"The high priest arose and said unto him [Jesus], Answereth thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?"

Frustration reached its apex in Caiaphas. A myriad of false witnesses paraded before the Sanhedrin, none of whom could concoct successful lies about Jesus. While that went on Jesus stood staring into the eyes of Caiaphas with a gaze that must have burned his soul. Never did He say a word. The frustration and hatred of Caiaphas and the rest of the Sanhedrin mounted as they waited for Jesus to say something they could attack, and thus release their passion. Even after the two witnesses presented their twisted testimony, Jesus still said nothing. The air was filled with lies and inconsistencies. The mockery of justice dominated the scene. The Sanhedrin became even more desperate for Jesus to say something so they could twist that and make it the new issue. Yet all they could hear up to this point was the echo of their own stupidity and anger.

1. Jesus upheld the law

Jesus said nothing because there was nothing to say. If they weren't going to uphold Jewish law, He would. And one of those laws said that a man could not incriminate himself. Maimonides, a Jewish medieval scholar, said that The law does not permit the death penalty as a sentence for a sinner by his own confession. That had always been central to Jewish law. Jesus had nothing to say, and the law made provision for Him to stay silent. He had to be accused by others and proven guilty by them. There was nothing to say anyway because there had been no true testimony, only contrary statements about something He had supposedly said. So Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin and allowed the echo of their words to ring through the hall of Caiaphas's house.

2. Jesus put the Sanhedrin on trial

The contrast between the calmness of Christ and the fury of Caiaphas is striking. When anyone looks at this scene objectively, he won't sees Jesus on trial, he'll see the Sanhedrin put to task. It's clear who Christ was. There was no need for retaliation, vindication, or self-defense. Jesus stood before Caiaphas, resolutely headed for the cross. He knew it was His hour to die for the sins of the world.

B. The Peace of Christ (v. 63a)

"Jesus held His peace."

That's another way of saying he kept silent. Caiaphas must have continually badgered Him to say something, but He did not. The prophet Isaiah said, "As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth" (Isa. 53:7).

C. The Charge of Blasphemy (v. 63b)

"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."

Caiaphas called on Jesus to make the most sacred oath a Jew could ever speak--to answer the question truthfully as a vow before the living God. It was an oath to the God of truth who punishes liars. Here Caiaphas wanted Jesus to claim to be the Son of God, a claim to deity. That was considered a blasphemous claim for a human to make, so he was trying to get Jesus to blaspheme. If He was successful, they would have their reason for executing Him. Leviticus 24:16 says, "He who blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death." So the crime they attached to Christ was that He said He was God. But that wasn't a crime because it happened to be the truth. Jesus was not executed for saying He was God, but for being God.

1. Christ's claim to be the Messiah

Jesus had previously claimed to be the Messiah. After reading a Messianic prophecy from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth, He said, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21). That was a claim to be the Messiah. On a different occasion Christ met a woman of Samaria. She said to Him, "I know that Messiah cometh" (John 4:25). He replied, "I that speak unto thee am he" (v. 26). He claimed overtly to be the promised Messiah--the deliverer and Savior of Israel. That was something He never denied; He always affirmed it. That Caiaphas asked Him if He was the Christ indicated he knew Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. When Christ rode into the city of Jerusalem, "the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!" (Matt. 21:9). Those names were all Messianic titles. It was perfectly clear that Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah.

However, Jesus never flaunted the fact that He was the Messiah. He didn't want to cause problems outside the proper plan of God. While He claimed to be the Messiah in no uncertain terms, He told His disciples to "tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ" (Matt. 16:20). He avoided the danger and the threats. He avoided what might happen if people became upset at such a claim. So while He claimed to be the Messiah, He did so cautiously.

2. Christ's claim to be the Son of God

The Sanhedrin knew Jesus had also claimed to be the Son of God. That's why Caiaphas asked Him if He was the Son of God. But what did Caiaphas mean? Did he believe Christ claimed to be just another offspring of God or another creature God made? No, he meant deity. Why else would they charge Christ with blasphemy? If He was a son of God like everyone is a child of God in that He loved God and was created by Him, then affirming so wouldn't be blasphemous. But Caiaphas knew what Christ meant. When Jesus said He was the Son of God, He meant He was equal with God, for a son is of the same essence and nature as his father. Jesus had said continually, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). Throughout the gospel of John Jesus' claims to be the Son of God. Even John 19:7 says, "The Jews answered him [Pilate], We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

Caiaphas knew Jesus claimed to be the Messiah--the anointed one, the coming King and ruler of Israel. As such He was a threat to his rule and priesthood. And He claimed to be the Son of the living God, a claim no one could make even in a cautious way without it spreading like wildfire. Caiaphas wanted to hear those claims from Jesus' own mouth so he would have reason to execute Him.

D. The Prediction of Christ (v. 64)

1. Christ's present reaffirmation (v. 64a)

"Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said."

Mark 14:62 adds that Jesus also said, "I am." Jesus took the oath of the living God and affirmed He was the anointed Messiah and the Son of God. This was not a time for Him to be cautious; it was time for Him to die. So Christ was frank with the Sanhedrin about His claims.

2. Christ's future role (v. 64b)

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

a) His exaltation

That is a quote from Daniel 7:13-14, a great Messianic prophecy. What an amazing claim! Jesus affirmed before the Sanhedrin that He was God, and that soon they would see Him exalted to the right hand of God and coming in the clouds of heaven. One day He will return to earth as judge and King to establish His eternal Kingdom. Jesus claimed He was the one Daniel spoke of.

b) His judgment

When Jesus said, "Hereafter shall ye see," He was informing Caiaphas that he would see Him again on that day. Caiaphas would see Christ at the Great White Throne when He calls out of the graves all those who rejected Him and His Father (John 5:25-29). Jesus will then become Caiaphas's eternal Judge. Jesus referred to Himself as "Son of man" in Matthew 26:64 because that's the phrase Daniel used in his prophecy. That title also was Christ's most common name for Himself. He is Son of man and the Son of God--fully man and fully God.

In the eyes of the Sanhedrin, Jesus condemned Himself by His own words. But that alone was unjust and illegal. They claimed He incriminated Himself with His blasphemy--that He had the audacity to claim to be the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus was right--He was equal with God and would be elevated to God's right hand. Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus Christ "the express image of [God's] person." It also says that when He had finished His work, he "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Matthew 24:30 says that one day the Son of man will come "in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Jesus affirmed that His death would usher Him into God's presence for His coronation. He would then remain at the right hand [a symbol of power] of God as King and ruler. But one day soon He will return in glory. Those who stood in judgment against Christ will some day be judged by Him.

V. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONCLUSION (Matthew 26:65-66)

A. The Accusation of Blasphemy (v. 65)

"The high priest tore his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy! What further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy."

1. Avoiding truth

Was Jesus' claim to be God blasphemy? No, because what He said was true. But the high priest didn't want to know the truth. Jesus said, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works" (John 10:37-38). The rulers knew He had performed miracles. They knew He raised Lazarus from the dead. But they didn't want to know the truth. They closed their minds to it out of fear. People today reject Christ because they are afraid to examine the issues. They know that if they do their lives will be overturned and exposed for what they are. They would rather go to hell blind than find the truth.

2. Applying theatrics

Caiaphas did what a high priest had the right to do when God was dishonored--tear his garments (Lev. 21:10). But in Caiaphas's case it was mere theatrics. He wasn't concerned about God's name; He was happy because Jesus could now be executed. But he put on a show to appear grieved. Such histrionics were typical among ancient peoples. Whenever they wanted to express grief, distress, or intense emotion, they would rip their clothes. It may well have been that members of the Sanhedrin wore garments that had been sewed many times because they had performed those kind of theatrics before. Caiaphas ripped his clothes to appear as if he were defending the holiness of God, but inwardly he was rejoicing at the prospect of getting rid of Jesus Christ.

When Caiaphas said, "What further need have we of witnesses?" he was effectively putting an end to the trial. No one was brought in to testify for Jesus. No evidence was presented. There was no proof that Jesus was not the Son of God.

B. The Violation of Protocol (v. 66)

"What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."

That procedure was not according to judicial protocol. No scribe was recording the votes. There was no pause between each vote so each judge could weigh the seriousness of his decision. It was nothing more than a rabble. They were a mad mob, screaming for His blood. There was no justice. Mark 14:64 says their vote was unanimous. The usual careful vote was thrown out.

VI. THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST CONDUCT (Matthew 26:67-68)

"Then they spat in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who smote thee?"

A. The Contempt of the Aristocracy

The Jewish aristocracy--the high priest, elders, chief priests, and scribes--abused Christ. They were the leaders of the nation, and they constituted the supreme court. To show you how utterly possessed they were by the demons of hell, Luke 22:65 says, "Many other things blasphemously spoke they against him." The blasphemer wasn't Jesus; the Sanhedrin itself was full of blasphemers. Jesus claimed to be God. That wasn't blasphemy; it was truth. But spitting in the face of God is blasphemy-- blasphemy of an inconceivable kind. Luke 22:64 adds, "When they had blindfolded Him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?" That's frightening when considering whom they were dealing with!

1. They spit on Him

A supreme sign of contempt in Jewish culture was to spit on someone or something (Num. 12:14). A tomb in the Valley of Kidron is known as Absalom's tomb. The Jewish people have long hated the memory of Absalom because he was a traitor to his father, David. He even tried to take his father's life. To this day, when anyone who is faithful to Judaistic tradition walks by Absalom's tomb, he will spit on it. Spit is a symbol of disdain, and the Sanhedrin spit in the face of God.

2. They buffeted him

The judges also buffeted (Gk., kolaphiz[ma]o), or hit Christ with their fists. They punched Him as if He were a punching bag. Others slapped Him with the palms of their hands. They ridiculed and mocked His supposed deity by asking to prophecy who hit Him. Mark 14:65 adds, "The guards did strike him with the palms of their hands." Even the Temple police took part in the mockery.

B. The Compassion of Christ

The nation of Israel was rotten--a rotten carcass waiting to be eaten by the Roman eagle. The representatives of the nation had abandoned all sense of virtue, righteousness, and holiness. They spat on the One who taught them to love their enemies. He who smiled at the approach of a child, who beamed when a sinner became a saint, and who mirrored the loving heart of God was prepared to die on the cross for the very people who spat on Him.

The religious leaders framed their own Messiah. They pretended to know God, but when God came to them, they spat on Him. They were far from the truth, intent on protecting their power, prestige, and position. Anyone who rejects Jesus Christ today stands with those religious phonies. Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30).

Conclusion

Ironically, those who misjudge Jesus will be rightly judged by Him one day. The tables will be turned. The judges who tried Christ were nothing more than criminals, and they will be justly condemned. The One wrongly accused will one day become the Judge. The damning sin is the sin of unbelief, which encompasses pride, impenitence, independence, and self-sufficiency. It is the sin of thinking you can be right with God without Christ.

As I look at the scene of Christ before the Sanhedrin, I'm overwhelmed by His grace. I deserve the trial, the sentence, the condemnation, and the execution Christ undeservedly endured for me. It is God who should spit in my face, punch and slap me around, and then execute me. But Christ took my place.

I was once a captive of Satan, but Christ became a captive so I might be set free. I was once a forsaken outcast--apart from the fellowship of God--but Christ became forsaken and an outcast for me. He was forsaken by all His own that I might be made forever a member of the family of God. I was once denied compassion and sympathy, but Jesus went to a compassionless death for me. Now He is my sympathetic high priest who understands and cares for me. I was once accursed, but Jesus became accursed for me. I was once a false witness who denied the truth about Christ, but Christ endured false witnesses to make me His own. Now no one can ever bring an accusation against me that will make me lose my salvation. I saw Jesus remain silent for me. Shouldn't I fill my mouth with praise for Him? I was dead, but Jesus died that I might live. :nod:pray

http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2390.htm


amen.

[steve53]

Thanks S4H - I'm on board with all you've posted. Perhaps my point wasn't clear?
What has me disturbed about that program is that for all intents and purposes the Gospels' Divine inspiration is being denied in favor of secular logic and reasoning. Divinity school students (I'm assuming) are now being taught that the Gospels are nothing more than an attempt to record a quaint story that was once just an oral tradition. The program, while appearing on the surface to be sympathetic to Jesus, was a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the Biblical record of what happened to Jesus and why. And to add insult to injury they used willing theological “experts” to accomplish that goal. I was disgusted to say the least and am still bothered today. The people they interviewed are teaching future pastors.

(10:49 - Sorry - I haven't read part 2 yet.)

[Sing4Him]

What has me disturbed about that program is that for all intents and purposes the Gospels' Divine inspiration is being denied in favor of secular logic and reasoning

Yes, I agree with you. It is disturbing. This is an ongoing attempt of Satan to destroy the gospel truth. He will never succeed.. although those who succumb to the lies will face condemnation and the lake of fire.

[steve53]

S4H - You know, I started watching that show hoping it was going to be done along the lines of your two posts....sadly, it was not.

Makes me think of this verse:
2 Peter 2
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

[His Bride]

Jesus will always be "on trial" in this dark world. But when He comes in glory every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He alone is Lord. Praise God!

[steve53]

I was reading this piece on Rapture Alert.com - http://www.rapturealert.com/2008/070608littlecorner.asp - and came across this:

Quote:
God help us! The Church doesn't even know how to get to heaven anymore! It's pretty sad when Time notes in its article that the Church has managed to find its way around its own foundational belief "that "no one comes to the Father except through me."" That's what Jesus said. It's what He meant and yet 57% of Evangelical Christians are STILL leaving the door open to the possibility that there may be a different way to salvation? Apostasy is running through our churches like a California wildfire as time to reach the lost, many of whom may be occupying a pew near you based on the above, is running out. End Quote

Full commentary below -

In Our Little Corner

by Michael G. Mickey
(7-6-08)

Frequently, through one means or another, I'm confronted concerning my belief that the Lord's return for His Church must be near at hand. There are any number of reasons why that happens, but mostly? It's because most of my readers are Americans and, in our little corner of the world, things seem to be fine, aside from the high costs of gasoline, a scattered issue here and there. But all isn't well in the world. In fact all isn't well here either.

In the United States of America, the Midwest is besieged with flooding, California is on fire, our morality is in the gutter and, not only that, the Church, which needs to be on its toes in light of the number of prophetic indicators present in the world around us pointing to Jesus Christ's return? It should be screaming out in unison that Jesus Christ is coming soon to a lost and dying world, but it isn't. It's largely quiet; its pastors focused on teaching us how to get from Sunday to Wednesday night and back to the next Sunday. Even worse, things have gotten so doctrinally askew that Time Magazine recently reported, in an almost celebratory tone, that "Americans of every religious stripe are considerably more tolerant of the beliefs of others than most of us might have assumed."

Tolerant. I hate that word when it is employed as a descriptor of Christians - and for good reason. According to Time, the following is true (emphasis added mine):

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 American, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the Father except through me." Even as mainline churches had become more tolerant, the exclusivity of Christianity's path to heaven has long been one of the Evangelicals' fundamental tenets. The new poll suggests a major shift, at least in the pews.
Reading that should have every Christian in America shifting in whatever type of seat they find themself resting in while reading such a distressing assessment of the condition of the Church today!

In an hour when mankind stands, conditionally at the very least, at the very threshold of the Rapture of the Church, what most needs to be falling from the lips of every Christian which is that Jesus Christ is the only way to the forgiveness of sin, eternal life, and heaven isn't. Instead, a lost and dying world is hearing the Church's equivalent of an old Burger King campaign slogan: "Have it your way!"

God help us! The Church doesn't even know how to get to heaven anymore! It's pretty sad when Time notes in its article that the Church has managed to find its way around its own foundational belief "that "no one comes to the Father except through me."" That's what Jesus said. It's what He meant and yet 57% of Evangelical Christians are STILL leaving the door open to the possibility that there may be a different way to salvation? Apostasy is running through our churches like a California wildfire as time to reach the lost, many of whom may be occupying a pew near you based on the above, is running out.

A World In Despair

In closing, despite the fact many of us still have plenty of food in the cupboard and 200 channels of cable television, the world is reeling like a drunkard about to take a nosedive. As a retired police officer, I can't tell you how many times I've witnessed that. Suffice to say that people can be standing all around a drunk about to crack his or her head on the floor and miss it, mostly because they're a bit tipsy themselves. The sober person standing a comfortable distance away, however? They can see it coming, often quickly enough to poke a friend of theirs and say, "That guy is about to fall over!" Consider this commentary as an opportunity to poke a brother or sister in your church to remind them that Jesus is STILL the only way to heaven and, not only that, an opportunity to present to them some evidence from the news of our world today that should serve as a reminder that Christ's return is drawing near.

"That guy is about to fall over! Just look at him!"

An AFP article states that "some endangered species may face an extinction risk that is up to a hundred times greater than previously thought!"

Presently, one in four mammals, one in eight birds and one in three amphibians are on the endangered species list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Remember what we were taught in school concerning the food chain, how interdependent all of its links are? Who are we kidding? If one in four mammal species alone are in danger of extinction and the risk of any of those species has been underestimated a hundred times lower than reality, things may be on the verge of crumbling far more quickly than anyone presently believes may be true, even in our little corner of the world.

1st Thessalonians 5:1-6:
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
Jesus Christ is coming soon! Be ready!


Link for the Time article - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817217,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-nation

Monday, Jun. 23, 2008
Christians: No One Path to Salvation
By David Van Biema

Americans of every religious stripe are considerably more tolerant of the beliefs of others than most of us might have assumed, according to a new poll released Monday. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 Americans, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the Father except through me." Even as mainline churches had become more tolerant, the exclusivity of Christianity's path to heaven has long been one of the Evangelicals' fundamental tenets. The new poll suggests a major shift, at least in the pews.

The Religious Landscape Survey's findings appear to signal that religion may actually be a less divisive factor in American political life than had been suggested by the national conversation over the last few decades. Peter Berger, University Professor of Sociology and Theology at Boston University, said that the poll confirms that "the so-called culture war, in its more aggressive form, is mainly waged between rather small groups of people." The combination of such tolerance with high levels of religious participation and intensity in the U.S., says Berger, "is distinctively American — and rather cheering. "

Less so, perhaps, to Christian conservatives, for whom Rice University sociologist D. Michael Lindsay suggests the survey results have a "devastating effect on theological purity." An acceptance of the notion of other paths to salvation dilutes the impact of the doctrine that Christ died to remove sin and thus opened the pathway to eternal life for those who accept him as their personal savior. It could also reduce the impulse to evangelize, which is based on the premise that those who are not Christian are denied salvation. The problem, says Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is that "the cultural context and the reality of pluralism has pulled many away from historic Christianity."

Quizzed on the breadth of the poll's definition of "Evangelical," Pew pollster John Green said the 296-page survey made use of self-identification by the respondents' churches, denominations or fellowships, whose variety is the report's overriding theme. However, he said, if one isolates the most "traditionalist" members of the white Evangelical group, 50% still agreed that other faiths might offer a path to eternal life. In fact, of the dozens of denominations covered by the Pew survey, it was only Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who answered in the majority that their own faith was the only way to eternal life.

Analysts expressed some surprise at how far the tolerance needle has swung, but said the trend itself was foreseeable because of American Christians' increasing proximity to other faiths since immigration quotas were loosened in the 1960s. Says Rice's Lindsay, the author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite: "If you have a colleague who is Buddhist or your kid plays with a little boy who is Hindu, it changes your appreciation of the religious 'other.'"

While the combination of Americans' religiosity — more than half those polled said was "very important in their lives" — and their tolerance for the beliefs of others may suggest creedal confusion, this appears not to trouble good-hearted U.S. pew-sitters. Says Lindsay, "The problem is not that Americans don't believe in anything, but that they believe in everything, and the two things don't always fit together." But he adds, the views are consistent with tolerant views expressed by Evangelicals he met in various cities as he toured while promoting his book. Mohler agrees: "We've seen this coming," adding that the query about whether others can make it to heaven "has been the question I get asked by more college students and on my radio program." More so than Christ's divinity or Resurrection, he says, "the exclusivity of the Gospel is the most vulnerable doctrine in the face of the modern world."

Liberals and conservatives will interpret the numbers in different ways, says Pew's Green. "The liberal [interpretation] is that Americans are becoming more universalistic, religiously. The conservative one is that Americans are losing faith and becoming more accommodationist." But he says the truth may lie elsewhere. "Just because they don't want to believe that there's only one way to salvation doesn't meant that they don't take their religion very seriously."

The political implications of the Pew findings are more difficult to gauge. Green says that while Americans' unexpectedly high tolerance for one others� creeds might seem to blunt the sharp religious edge of some of today's campaign-trail discourse, it could also lead to larger religious coalitions around certain issues as pious believers overcome their inhibitions about working with others.

The survey's biggest challenge is to the theologians and pastors who will have to reconcile their flocks' acceptance of a new, polyglot heaven with the strict admission criteria to the gated community that preceded it.



Come Lord Jesus - Please come soon!

[FrankBeMe]

I caught bits and pieces of it yesterday....but what grabbed my attention was when they said that no one knows who wrote the Gospels, but we know that none of them actually knew Jesus. That's like after an explosion somewhere when we are told that we don't know how it happened but it definitely not terrorism.

So..I found the DVD of the show on History Channel's store. Here is the description of the video:

The Trial of Jesus DVD

* Go beyond faith in this multi-faceted look at one of the most important events in history.
* See why many leading biblical scholars insist the scriptural account cannot be accurate.

It is an event that changed the course of human history. Yet, beyond the familiar biblical accounts, shockingly little is known about the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. And many of the world's most distinguished biblical scholars insist that what the Bible has to say about the event cannot be correct.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS visits the Holy Land, pores through some of the oldest writings on earth and pieces together circumstantial evidence and tantalizing clues looking for a clearer picture of Christ's final days. Reconstructing the events surrounding His fate, this thought-provoking special challenges many of the best-known stories--both old and new--surrounding this pivotal moment.


That's the problem with "leading scholars." They are just so much into themselves because of three or four diplomas on their wall, that they believe they are approaching, if not already having reached, infallibility. The one's the History Channel and the others who show programs of this type are some of the biggest snobs I've seen being portrayed as "experts."

How do they know what the Bible says about the trial "cannot be correct?" No...they just know this because they believe that they are "distinguished biblical scholars."

You have to wonder....how many of these people got their formal theology schooling in the 60s and 70s, when secularization was rampant.

Most of these shows on Christianity are very slanted toward the "this can't be true" crowd. The History Channel and all the others associated with it need to find some "distinguished biblical scholars" who are actually Christians.