Kangaroo Court
The Suffering of Christ Through the Eyes of Matthew • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 56 viewsNotes
Transcript
Handout
Please turn with me to Matthew 26:57-68.
A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. The defendants in such courts are often denied access to legal representation and, in some cases, proper defence and the right of appeal.
This latter form of a kangaroo court is an apt description of the court in which Jesus was tried and sentenced to death. Due to the various laws which were broken by the Sanhedrin during the trial of Jesus, their trial was a complete farce; but God can even use a complete farce to accomplish His purpose.
Let’s read Matthew’s account of this sham trial together.
Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.
But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome.
Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.
They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward,
and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’ ”
The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?”
But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him,
and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”
The first thing we see is that:
Jesus’ Trial Was a Farce because of The Location
Jesus’ Trial Was a Farce because of The Location
Notice verse 57 for a moment:
Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.
From Matthew’s text we cannot tell the exact location of the trial, but John informs us that it took place at Caiaphas’ residence.
Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest,
Matthew tells us in verse 59 that
the chief priests and the whole aCouncil
Were involved in this kangaroo court. The term translated “Council” is from the Greek term sunedrion, from which we get the English transliteration — Sanhedrin.
The New Manners and Customs of the Bible 26:59 Sanhedrin
Because of the predominance of the chief priests in the Sanhedrin, at times the words chief priests seem to refer to the action of the Sanhedrin, even though the name itself is not used.
The Sanhedrin was the highest Jewish council in the first century. According to the Mishna, the first section of the Talmud, the council had 70 members and was presided over by the high priest. The Sanhedrin included both of the main Jewish parties among its membership. Since the high priest presided, the Sadducean priestly party seems to have predominated; but some leading Pharisees also were members (Acts 5:34; 23:1–9).
The Mishna was the official rule book for the Sanhedrin, and as we will see, many of their rules were broken during this trial. Official trials by the Sanhedrin took place somewhere in the temple complex. But this obviously took place in an informal setting, which seems to have gone against the rules that were spelled out for the religious establishment of Israel.
Not only was the place of the trial an issue, but
Jesus’ trial was a farce because of when it was held
Jesus’ trial was a farce because of when it was held
We know from a simple harmony of the various gospel accounts that this kangaroo court was held during the nigh-time hours. We know this for various reasons. First of all it was being held during the time in which Peter denied Christ, which was before the rooster crowed. Another reason we can be certain of it occuring during the night-time is that they had already reached their conclusion by early morning when they presented Jesus to Pilate.
Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.
Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.”
But the Sanhedrin was not allowed to conduct a trial during the night. It had to take place during daylight hours only.
So far we’ve seen that the trial was a farce because of where and when it took place. Notice next that
Jesus’ trial was a farce because of its length
Jesus’ trial was a farce because of its length
According to the rules which the Sanhedrin was to follow, a verdict of acquittal may be reached in one day, but a verdict of conviction had to take multiple days. I suppose one could argue that the trial began before midnight, and the verdict was reached after midnight, therefore it was multiple days. But in Jewish reckoning the day began in the evening at dusk. “And there was morning and evening, the first day.”
Furthermore, in the case of a capital offense, after reaching a guilty verdict, the members were to take a day of fasting, and then come together on the third day to reconsider their guilty verdict. This obviously did not happen in this case.
Obviously these rules for the Sanhedrin were not always followed. There is a frequent sense of “mob rule” such as took place in regarding the stoning of Stephen.
Next let’s note that:
Jesus’ trial was a farce because of false testimony
Jesus’ trial was a farce because of false testimony
Notice what Matthew wrote in verse 59.
Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.
One of the things I’ve struggled to understand was in what sense were they looking for false testimony? There is at least two ways this could be taken:
First, they may have been looking for false testimony because they knew that true testimony would not accomplish what they had predetermined
Because the nation of Israel was subject to Roman rule, and the power of the sword had been taken away from the nation, the Council had to come up with a charge that would satisfy Rome’s sense of justice
The Council understood that the religious charge of blaspheme was probably not enough to convince Pilate to have Jesus executed
Thus they were looking for multiple witnesses whose testimonies would independently agree, so they would be able to convince Pilate of that Jesus had committed a capital offense
But they failed to do so
Notice verses 60-62.
In other words, from the Christian perspective we know that there was no testimony that would implicate Jesus as a criminal period, let alone being guilty of a capital offense
Regardless of the reasoning for the false testimony, we know that they were not able to come up with an adequate reason for putting Jesus to death. Notice verses 60-62.
They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward,
and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’ ”
The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?”
Second, “false testimony may have been Matthew’s interjection into the account since he knew the truth of the situation
Craig Blomberg contends that “the term ‘false’ stems more from a Christian perspective, especially since this term appears here only in Matthew, rather than reflecting a consciously illegal or unethical approach adopted by the Jewish authorities.”
Regardless of the reasoning for the false testimony, we know that they were not able to come up with an adequate reason for putting Jesus to death.
Before we leave this train of thought, I need to mention that through the centuries various so-called Christians have used this passage to justify committing atrocities against Jewish people. “Christ Killers” was the mantra of the Hitler youth who committed many atrocities in the last century. It was used by some of the Crusaders who went to Jerusalem to free it from the control of the infidels, and while there they also took out their wrath on settlements of Jewish folks as well.
Some liberal scholars have actually contended that Matthew was anti-Semitic. Of course, being that he himself was Jewish that seems to be a baseless charge.
The point is that depraved humanity will go to great lengths to justify its ugly, ungodly actions.
Next, notice that:
Jesus’ trial was a farce because He was not given legal representation
Jesus’ trial was a farce because He was not given legal representation
representation
representation
Much of the Western World’s systems of Jurisprudence in based on the Jewish system. One of the rules that they followed, which is like our own nations laws, was that a person being charged with a crime had to have a legal representative assigned to them.
This obviously did not occur during Jesus’ trial. This kangaroo court was not interested in hearing the truth, but merely finding convincing evidences to support their hypothesis that Jesus must die!
Note next that:
Jesus’ trial was a farce because Jesus did not commit blasphemy as charged
Jesus’ trial was a farce because Jesus did not commit blasphemy as charged
The high priest seems to have been very agitated that Jesus wouldn’t reply to the various charges that the false witnesses brought forward. At one point we read:
The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent.
But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Why Jesus kept silent, on one level is difficult to know, yet on another level it is quite obvious.
On the one level, Jesus may have kept silent because He didn’t believe the false charges amounted to anything worthy of an answer
It appears that like the most inviting charge against Jesus was a statement that He made after cleansing the temple at the beginning of His earthly ministry
This charge was inviting because the Romans took seriously the desecration of any temple, regardless of the religious group associated with it
But the statement by the witnesses was far from accurate — they stated, in verse 61 that they had heard Jesus state that:
‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’ ”
But this is what Jesus had actually stated, as well as John’s narration of this context:
The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?”
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
On another level, Jesus kept silent in fulfillment of the prophecy of
He was oppressed and 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.
It seems that Caiaphas was trying to get Jesus to incriminate Himself with His own words — Since he was unable to do so, he stated it in such a way that Jesus had no choice but to respond by stating:
“I cadjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
“I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
The Mishna provides that a man may put another man on oath by saying, “I adjure you.” Thus Jesus had to finally answer
The mention of the temple may have prompted Caiaphas to ask this question
Some branches of Judaism anticipated a renewal of the temple’s glory when Messiah came
We know, looking back, that the glory of God did return to the temple in the person of Jesus Christ, but that is not what the chief priests were anticipating
The difficulty with this question has to do with one’s interpretation of what a messiah was, or for that matter what it means to be the son of God. Leon Morris wrote:
The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel according to Matthew 3. Jesus Tried before Caiaphas, 26:57–68
The high priest wants Jesus to state on oath whether or not he is the Messiah, and he wants it to be clear that the sense in which he is using “Messiah” in the question concerns the Messiah’s relationship to God.
Not all viewed the Messiah as divine
For many Messiah was merely to be a political or military leader
The populace hope of the day was that Messiah would remove Roman rule with a strong military uprising
But Caiaphas derived his authority from Rome, and not from the nation of Israel. His appointment by Rome as high priest was not deemed as legitimate in the minds of the most of the people since the high priest, according to the Law of Moses, was appointed for life
Thus Caiaphas wanted Rome to stay in power
Let’s now look at Jesus’ reply:
Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus’ reply basically amounts to saying: “That is your word, not mine.”
The effect is “I would not have put it that way, but since you do I cannot deny it.”
Jesus was guarded in His reply because He knew this priest and He had a different understanding of what Messiah was to be
But there is more to Jesus’ reply, and He quoted from two different OT sources in the remainder of His statement.
nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”
The statement about sitting at the right hand of power comes from
The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
In His reply Jesus was saying that He was the One to whom the Father was addressing in this psalm
The second part of the statement comes from
“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
Notice how the Council reacted to Jesus’ response:
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
But did Jesus actually blaspheme? According to the Mishna He did not, because to blaspheme one had to evoke the unspoken name of God, which Jesus did not do. We understand the term “Power” was a metonym for the name of God. But that was the common thing to do in the Judaism of the first century. It was just the opposite of blasphemy, in other words.
And of course, we know that since Jesus is in fact God in the flesh, He was not committing blasphemy because He was only speaking what was true.
After coming to a verdict, the Council treated Jesus in a contemptuous way.
Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him,
and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”
This kangaroo trial was a farce in every sense of the word. And yet God can use a farce to accomplish His own purposes. And that is exactly what He did. Once again we run into the holy tension of the sovereignty of God versus the responsibility of man. This past week in my devotions I read this from Charles Spurgeon:
“Many have failed to understand how everything, from the smallest event to the greatest, can be ordained and fixed — and yet how it can be equally true that man is a responsible being and that he acts freely, choosing the evil and rejecting the good. I do not believe they are two parallel lines which can never meet, but I do believe that for all practical purposes they are so nearly parallel that we might regard them as being so. They do meet, but only in the infinite mind of God is there a converging point where they melt into one.
God had decreed from before the foundation of the world that the Eternal Son would become man so that He could accomplish what man could not. He had the power to live a sinless life, which created man did not have the power to do. He, by means of His substitutionary death on the cross, satisfied God in regards to the sins of all who place their faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation. To place our faith in Jesus is to rely on His work for our salvation, and not on any form of work that we have accomplished ourselves.
There are only two types of people in this world. They have been described in various ways. But for today I will say that one type of people belongs to the congregation of the kangaroo court. They have determined that Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And many of them actively seek to display their disdain to Him just as the Council did on this fateful day. Though not all are active in their disdain, the result is the same for the active and the passive. Eternal damnation.
The second group may be described as though who belong to the congregation of those who have been made righteous in Christ. Which group do you belong to?
Let’s pray.
Closing Song: #554
Give Me Jesus
Verses 1, 4.