Van-guard (văn’gärd), noun: “The foremost or leading position in a trend or movement.”

the journey forward... exploring the emerging church... navigating spiritual formation... seeking to transform the world... ...through Christ

Pompous Presumptuous People in Powerful Posts

Matthew 26:57-68

printable version

As you know, there has been controversy over Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ. The media have really focused on the idea that either the film or Mel Gibson or the gospels themselves (or all of the above) are anti-Semitic. In light of the Nazi Holocaust (and other atrocities perpetrated on the Jews throughout history, even by people claiming the name of Christ), people certainly need to be extra sensitive about anti-Semitism.

So, when this movie was in production a year ago, the New York Times Magazine featured an editorial accusing the movie of being anti-Semitic. The Anti-Defamation League picked up on this, and has been on a campaign against the movie. The ADL states at their website, “We were saddened and pained to find that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus. There is no question in this film about who is responsible. At every single opportunity, Mr. Gibson's film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion.” (http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_qa.asp) And in a survey the ADL conducted last month, they found that “one in four Americans believe that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus” (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4454_12.htm).

So the quite understandable question that is asked of us Christians by people in our culture (and not necessarily just our Jewish friends—but people in general who are rightly concerned about bigotry and defamation and hatred toward people of other races) is “What do you think of this—did the Jews kill Jesus? Do you blame the Jews of deicide? Are they God-killers?” Good question. It needs an answer. I’ll start my answer with a confession.

I confess that, as I watched the movie, I grew angry—as I watched Jesus be mocked and spit upon, as I watched him be hit and chained and scourged to a bloody pulp, as I watched him—bloody beyond recognition with a crown of thorns on his head—carrying his cross and ultimately nailed to it and hung upon it to die, I felt a visceral need to retaliate. I wanted to jump onto the screen and physically stop those people from hurting this innocent one. And I felt for a moment in my heart, It was those Jewish people, by golly, that were pushing this cruelty! They met at night to hold a rushed mockery of a trial; they listened to false witnesses; they manipulated Pilate into crucifying Jesus. There is the Jewish Chief Priest, adorned in his religious regalia, goading the crowd into yelling “Crucify him!”

Now, if I felt that way, I must admit that I can understand how a Jew or someone who is properly sensitive to anti-Semitism might feel terrified of people like me.  I became terrified of me! I realized, sitting in that theater, that I was reacting not like Jesus (who, in his strength, took the beatings and refused to retaliate), but more like Peter (who, out of frustration and emotion, wrongly drew his sword). So I have a confession: I was sinning in my reaction. I was not being Christ-like, I was being Bob-like.

And that is the point, isn’t it? There is a difference between what the facts are, and how people see the facts because of our sinfulness. Our perception of reality gets cloudy pretty fast when we allow our humanness (our shortcomings, our fallenness, our sinfulness) to get in the way. Just because some people interpret what they are witnessing through their imperfections, does not mean that what they are objectively and properly interpreting what they are witnessing. The problem is not in the subject-matter, but in the faulty interpretation of the subject-matter!

Say I go to the art museum to look at Renaissance paintings by the great artists of Europe . I notice an awful lot of nudity. Do I interpret that nudity through my sinfulness (as if it were pornography like what I could purchase from a magazine vendor), or do I interpret those paintings not through my sinfulness—but as they actually were intended to be seen by the artist (as creativity and beauty)? The meaning of the painting can be quickly skewed if I allow myself to see it only through my preconceptions, through the personal baggage that I bring to things I seek to interpret.

This is who we are, and it is the greatest challenge to effective communication. You can tell me something (with a specific meaning in my mind that you’re trying to convey), but I very often misunderstand your point. Why? Because I already think I know what you are going to say, and it’s easier to deal with that that to go through the real work of understanding. One of my areas of study in my undergrad degree was communication—I studied interpersonal, organizational, and mass media communication. And the problem in all communication is the same thing—the “channel” between the “sender” and “receiver” always has “interference” and the number one source of interference is the receiver’s preconceptions of the sender’s message. That is why, as Dennis Prager writes, Jews and Christians are “watching two different movies” when they watch The Passion (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20031028.shtml).

What I want to do this morning is look at the way the Gospels really portray the trial of Jesus, so that we can understand what the author meant for us to see, not what we see in our imperfect ability to perceive the facts. Now I do not pretend to be able to have perfect perception of facts (I am, like everyone else a simple human being)—but I think that if we realize our imperfections, we can better sift through them, and if we are committed to trying our very hardest to really listen and allow the gospels to speak for themselves, without trying to force them into our preconceptions, we can at least feel we are moving towards the meaning that the communicator is trying to convey.

We will look specifically at Matthew 26, verses 57-68. This is Matthew’s account of Jesus’ trial before the Jewish leaders.

⁵⁷Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. ⁵⁸But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

⁵⁹The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. ⁶⁰But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.  (Matthew 26:57-60a)

Matthew has made it clear up to this point (in the last several chapters) that the chief priests and the Sanhedrin wanted to remove Jesus because he claimed to have messianic authority—coupled with his immense popularity with the general public and his clear disrespect for them as the religious authorities. They had become convinced that Jesus was a real danger—because they had determined that Jesus was misleading the people that they were in charge of protecting (This is often the “noble intentions” of religious leaders isn’t it?—they wanted protect the “ignorant lay-people” from false religious teaching and from the Roman government).  In one of their meetings, they deliberated about the harm Jesus could cause: “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place (the temple) and our nation.”

They had become convinced that they had to do something for the good of the people—in their minds Jesus could not possibly the Messiah, the Christ. No, he is just some man who is causing so much disturbance that he could actually destroy what little bit of the Hebrew nation that they still had.

Back to Matthew 26, verse 59—

⁵⁹The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. ⁶⁰But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.  Finally two came forward ⁶¹and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” (Matthew 26:59-60)

The Sanhedrin council, already convinced of the guilt of Jesus, is just going through the motions here. They know that the Mosaic Law requires at least two witnesses, so when witnesses come forward with conflicting testimonies (which Matthew correctly characterizes as “false”), they get two to “finally” agree on something. Of course, even these witnesses get it wrong—another problem in communication! He was not threatening to tear down the holy Temple , but he was referring to his own body. Look at how it is recorded in John:

¹⁹Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

²⁰The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” ²¹But the temple he had spoken of was his body. ²²After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.  (John 2:19-20)

Back to Matthew 26—

⁶²Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” ⁶³But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

⁶⁴“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

⁶⁵Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. ⁶⁶What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

⁶⁷Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him ⁶⁸and said, “Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?” (Matthew 26:62-67)

I’d like to make a few observations about what is really happening here.

1.      The Sanhedrin already knew what they wanted to do with Jesus before the trial.

a.      They feared Jesus.

He was a threat to the peace of the nation. He was not seen as the true Messiah but as a terrible trouble-maker. He was a threat to the religious leaders—to their power and authority.

b.      They feared the crowds of Jews.

That is why they rushed this trial, holding it at night, away from the masses of people gathered in Jerusalem for Passover. We read earlier in this chapter that the Sanhedrin “plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him.” They were afraid of a “riot among the people” (Matthew 26:3-4)

c.       They were convinced of their righteous decision.

The members of the Sanhedrin were convinced of their own righteousness and that they had properly assessed the situation. They were, after all, the “chief priests,” the religious leaders. As such, they were too confident of their own abilities to discern God’s will.

d.      So, this is a deadly recipe: power and self-righteousness

We’ve seen it before, haven’t we? And we have seen it since, and we will probably see it again. This is why I have entitled this message “Pompous Presumptuous People in Powerful Posts.” That was exactly what the Sanhedrin were—they presumed to know what was the best for people, because they were placed in power posts. But just because you are in a place of power does not automatically mean that all your decisions are righteous.

This is a warning to anybody who finds themselves in a powerful post (be it a religious leader (a Senior Pastor, a Pope, a ministry director, a counselor), a business leader (a CEO, a director), or a civil leader (a Governor, the President of a country)—just because you are in power and feel your actions are righteous does not make it so. You had better be humble in your power, for power and self-righteousness is a deadly recipe.

2.       The Sanhedrin decided that the end justified the means.

This is what happens very often with Pompous Presumptuous People in Powerful Posts—they decide what is the best end, and then justify any means for getting to that end. Here the Sanhedrin presumed to know what was best for the Jewish people, so they put on a mock trial—just going through the motions—so that they can get to their self-righteous end. “The best thing is to get rid of Jesus, so it’s okay if we break some rules along the way—the end justifies the means.”

a.      They broke many standards of their own law.

Jewish law developed many rules for trying capital crimes (crimes that would lead to the death-sentence): capital trials had to be conducted during daylight, there had to be at least two days of questioning, they were not allowed to occur on the eve of a Sabbath or festival day, and a day had to pass before the verdict of condemnation could be issued.

How many of these rules (the “means”) were broken for the sake of what the Sanhedrin felt was the “righteous end?”

b.      They were hasty.

Often, when people are caught up in self-righteous indignation, they do not pause and ponder whether or not they may be wrong. The hastiness of Jesus’ trial epitomizes what happens when we rush foolishly ahead without first thinking through and praying through what we feel so certain about.

Questions for us: Who have you rushed to trial in your life because of self-righteous indignation toward that person? Have you paused long enough to evaluate whether or not you have rightly assessed that person? Have you shown grace and sought first to understand rather than to lay blame? Or is it just easier to write off that person?

c.       They disregarded the crowds that had a different view of Jesus.

How often have we seen religious authorities throughout the history of the world abuse their authority by dismissing their people’s wishes as “uneducated” or “not theologically sound.” The crowds have been on Jesus’ side, and instead of weighing this in a positive way, the religious leaders were threatened by it.

d.      They tinged the charges to get Pilate to execute Jesus.

When they have Jesus in their grasp, the political circumstances of being subject to Rome forced them to seek the death sentence from Pilate. So, once again, the end justified the means—they tinged the charges against Jesus with a political color so that the Romans could feel threatened as well. They painted Jesus in a special way for Pilate—Jesus is fancies himself a “king”—a threat to Caesar.

THEREFORE: The Sanhedrin are guilty of being what we’ve seen far too many times: Powerful religious leaders so convinced that they are always right that when they see a threat, they do not worry about the means by which they will eliminate the threat—all in the name of “protecting the people.”

That is what I see in the Scriptures. I think I have it right, though my preconceptions may have clouded something here or there. But doesn’t it make sense? Isn’t that what you see?

So, the question before us was this: “Did the Jews kill Jesus?”

The answer that I have to that good question is two-fold. One historical, one theological.

1.                  Did the Jews kill Jesus? Historical Answer:

The religious leaders of Jesus’ day and place—the Sanhedrin—were convinced that they had a better grasp on spiritual realities than the crowds of Jews that were following Jesus. Jesus was becoming so popular that the Sanhedrin sought to eliminate him. Since that end was an absolute necessity in their minds, they justified many unethical means to get that accomplished. They rushed Jesus through a mockery of a trial, they manipulated Pilate’s position of keeping the Peace for Caesar, they created a mob-mentality with the group of Jews that witnessed the trial before Pilate. The Romans then brutally treated Jesus and killed him in their normal way to scare their subjects into submission to Caesar—“this is what happens when you oppose Caesar: You die an excruciating death.”

So, historically, the religious leaders carry a major portion of the blame for the death of Jesus. They were Jewish, but they do not, by any means, represent the entire race of Jews. They were Pompous Presumptuous People in Powerful Posts.

2.                  Did the Jews kill Jesus?  Theological Answer:

No matter how much power the Sanhedrin had, and no matter how much power the Romans had, Jesus did not do a thing to keep this from happening to him. In fact he did all that he could to make sure it would happen to him—He actually wanted to suffer and die.

He told his followers:

“No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again.” (John 10:18)

He fulfilled the prophecy concerning his death in Isaiah:

⁵    But he was pierced for our transgressions,

      he was crushed for our iniquities;

   the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

      and by his wounds we are healed.

⁶    We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

      each of us has turned to his own way;

   and the LORD has laid on him

      the iniquity of us all.

⁷    He was oppressed and afflicted,

      yet he did not open his mouth;

   he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

      and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,

      so he did not open his mouth.   (Isaiah 53:5-7)

Why was he so willing to die? He said,

“For even I, the Son of Man, came here not to be served but to serve others, and to give my life as a ransom for many.”  (Mark 10:45 )

Mel Gibson’s movie opens with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane , where we prays, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)

What was he talking about? It is the cup of God’s wrath that Jesus is speaking of. Jesus submitted to His Father’s will—it had been determined that Jesus would be the bloody sacrifice—taking on the wrath of God on the part of us sinners.

“For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s wrath against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us.” (Romans 3:25a)

So, the theological answer to “Did the Jews kill Jesus?” is this—God killed Jesus. Jesus killed Jesus. He laid down his own life—nobody took it from him. Jesus was no helpless victim—He laid down my life voluntarily.

And he did it because of his love for us.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

Jesus chose to give up his life for you.

⁷Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. ⁸But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:7-8)

Jesus said to you:

“Greater love has no one than this: that one lay down his life for his friends.

You are my friends.” (John 15:13-14)

Do you know that kind of love?

  Have you experienced it?

    I have, for I believe in what Jesus did—and that has made all the difference in my life.

       “We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us.”

Let me encourage you to open your heart to God’s love shown to you in the person of Jesus Christ.

back to the top

back to THE PASSION series

Ministry Transformation- The Emerging Church  Personal Transformation- Spiritual Formation  World Transformation- Social Action

Interact with Bob Robinson about the emerging church, spiritual formation, or social action by e-mailing vanguard church with your comments.