Sermon Tone Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Vigilantes were self-appointed law enforcement groups which sprang up on the American frontier.

One writer says that “vigilantism was [often] carried out by citizens who were moderate and orderly in their application of force,” but he notes that the danger of mob rule was also present.

Just ask the poor fellow whose grave at Boot Hill Cemetery in Arizona bears this epitaph: “Lynched by mistake.”

You’ve probably heard of the term “vigilante justice.”

Vigilantes were self-appointed law enforcement groups created on the American frontier due to the lack of paid law enforcement professionals.

Sometimes vigilante justice was moderate and orderly, but the danger of mob rule was always present.

A tombstone from the era of vigilante justice at Boot Hill Cemetery in Arizona reads, “Lynched by mistake.”

We loathe mistakes in justice.

We hate to see the wrong man or woman spend years of life in prison for crimes they didn’t commit.

One writer says that “vigilantism was [often] carried out by citizens who were moderate and orderly in their application of force,” but he notes that the danger of mob rule was also present.

Just ask the poor fellow whose grave at Boot Hill Cemetery in Arizona bears this epitaph: “Lynched by mistake.”

However, we also loathe breaks in justice.

We hate to see someone get away with a crime.

We hate to see someone dodge justice.

Sadly, we see both mistakes in justice and breaks in justice in our judicial system, but not so with the justice of God.

His justice never makes a mistake and it never takes a break.

The justice of God means that God always does what is right.

says...

The holiness of God means that God is without sin, separate from it, but the justice or righteousness of God means that God cannot tolerate sin and must punish sin.

When some people hear that God has said that they are sinners or that the price for sin is death, they ask, “Hasn’t God made a mistake?”

No, he hasn’t.

God’s perfect justice means that he cannot make a mistake in justice.

We are sinners and the price for sinning against an infinitely holy God is infinite death.

There’s no mistake in the perfect justice of God.

But when some people hear that there is no mistake in the perfect justice of God, they ask, “Can’t God just give me a break?”

No, he can’t.

God cannot shrug off sin.

He cannot overlook it forever.

He must do what is right, and the right thing in response to sin is punishment.

Because God is just, he must punish sin.

But if God hasn’t made a mistake regarding our sin and he won’t give us a break regarding our sin, then what can be done?

How can God be just and not sentence us to eternal death because of our sins?

How can God be righteous and welcome and us into his holy presence when we are so unrighteous?

The answer is, of course, Jesus Christ on the cross.

The Bible says in that Jesus’s death on the cross “was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

As one writer put it, “When Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins, it showed that God was truly righteous, because he did give appropriate punishment to sin, even though he did forgive his people their sins,” (Grudem, Doctrine, p. 93).

God has not made a mistake in condemning us as sinners.

God will not give us a break regarding our sin.

He has made his Son, Jesus, become sin on the cross to pay the price for our sin in his death, so that through his death and resurrection God’s justice is upheld and those of us who have faith are justified by his grace.

This is amazing grace.

It’s also perfect justice.

The perfect justice of God stands in stark contrast to the corrupt justice of the religious leaders as Jesus stands trial before the Sanhedrin in .

Because he is perfectly just, he demanded that his people do justly ().

In God said to his people...

As we’ll see, the corrupt religious leaders ignored God’s command to follow justice as they tried Jesus and then condemned him as deserving death.

But don’t forget what is really going on as we study this passage.

In the sacrifice of his Son, our perfectly just God is making a way for sinners to be justified through faith in his Son.

[CONTEXT] The trial of Jesus was actually like two trials in one.

There was the Jewish trial and then the Roman trial.

During the Jewish trial, Jesus was...

...first brought before Annas, the former high priest and current father-in-law to Caiaphas who was the high priest at the time ().

Then Jesus was brought before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, the ruling body in the Jewish temple (; cf. ; ).

And then Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin a second time after dawn ().

Mark skips past Jesus appearing before Annas, the former high priest, and goes right to Jesus appearing before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

[CIT] In this passage Jesus is unjustly tried and unjustly condemned by unjust men, [PROP] but this was the perfect justice of God making a way for the unjust (people like you and me) to be justified through faith in the Son of God.

[TS] We want to talk about this passage in four PARTS tonight...

Part #1 - vv. 53-54

Part #2 - vv. 55-59

Part #3 - vv. 60-61a

Part #4 - vv. 61b-65

MAJOR IDEAS

Jesus was first taken to see Annas who was, as I said, the former high priest (A.D. 6-15) who had been removed by Rome for unknown reasons.

In any event, he still held influence because of his previous position and because Caiaphas, his son-in-law, currently served as high priest (A.D. 18 to 36).

Annas was also personally affected by Jesus because on two occasions (one just earlier that week) Jesus had put to stop the irreverence and greed of the temple market place, which was known as the “Bazaar of Annas,” (; ).

records Jesus’s encounter with Annas...

Jesus’s words were a rebuke to Annas because they revealed that Annas wasn’t really interested in the truth.

If he was, he could have asked the thousands of people who had heard Jesus teach.

Jesus’s words also reminded Annas that he needed to call witnesses if he wanted to do things according to God’s commands.

This brings us to Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin here in .

Like Annas, they aren’t interested in the truth, but why this bit about Peter in v. 54?

Why do you think Mark would include this information about Peter following, sitting, and warming himself?

Because Mark’s gospel is based on Peter’s testimony, v. 54 states the facts of the matter.

This is where Peter was and this is what Peter did, but surely its more than that.

Verse 54 is a reminder to the reader that Mark, the narrator, hasn’t forgotten that Jesus said Peter would deny him.

Mark was definitely setting the stage for Peter’s denial, which is still to come in the next passage.

Verse 54 is also an invitation to sit down and ponder this scene, one in which the perfectly just Son of God is subjected to the unjust actions of the chief priests, elders, and scribes.

Like Peter, we will perhaps first shake our heads at how unjust these religious leaders are, but then like Peter as the chapter goes along we too realize that we are equally unjust.

Only God is just and only God is justifier.

A local council, or court, could be established in any town with at least 120 men who were heads of their household.

Each council, known as a sanhedrin (from the Greek word sunedrion, meaning “sitting together”), provided legal governance to its community.

These local councils were composed of twenty-three men, often drawn from the leadership of the synagogue.

An odd number of council members ensured that, whenever they voted on an issue or determined a verdict at a trial, there would always be a majority decision.

The supreme court of Israel was located in Jerusalem and met daily in the temple, except on the Sabbath and other holy days.

Notice they were not trying to obtain impartial testimony, but testimony of a certain kind and to a certain degree; they sought “testimony against Jesus to put him to death...” (v.

55).

Notice they were not trying to obtain impartial testimony, but testimony of a certain kind and to a certain degree; they sought “testimony against Jesus to put him to death...” (v.

55).

They could not witnesses that agreed with one another as to what Jesus did or said that was worthy of death and that was a problem because , which says...

The best accusation they could come up was something that Jesus said three years earlier, something they (perhaps willingly) chose to misunderstand.

In Jesus said...

What did the false witness say Jesus was talking about and what was he talking about in John 2:19?

Jesus was, of course, referring to his body and not the temple made of stone in Jerusalem.

What was the penalty for testifying falsely against someone in ?

Based on the stipulations articulated in the Old Testament, the Jewish legal system provided those accused of a crime with several protections: a public trial held during daylight hours, an adequate opportunity to make a defense, and the rejection of any charge unless it was supported by the testimony of at least two witnesses.

As we have seen and will continue to see, all this will be denied to Jesus.

Because even the false witnesses couldn’t agree on testimony against Jesus, the high priest stepped in hoping to provoke Jesus to say something incriminating.

Initially, however, Jesus remained silent.

Why do you think Jesus remained silent when first questioned by the high priest?

Jesus didn’t want to dignify this mock trial with a response.

More importantly, Jesus wanted to fulfill the prophecy of , which says of the promised Messiah...