Chapter 4 – The Third Rejection of the King (Part 6 of 6)

One Last Twist 

In each of the synoptic gospels¹, as well as John, there is an interesting episode that takes place immediately following the scene of Jesus’s illegal trial before the Sanhedrin.

Jesus proclaims Himself to be the Son of Man, and describes how He will be sitting at the right hand of Power and come in the clouds of heaven. In response, the chief priest, Caiaphas, tears his robes and says they don’t need to hear anything else because Jesus just incriminated Himself by claiming to be the Messiah.²

While this scene is taking place behind closed doors—at the home of Caiaphas, no less, which was also illegal—the gospel writers tell the story of Peter’s denial of Jesus. (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27). In each of these instances, Peter is standing in the courtyard of Caiaphas’s house, accused by various members of the crowd of being a disciple of Jesus. In three distinct occasions, Peter is forced to deny his relationship with Jesus or suffer the consequences of being affiliated with the Son of Man who was currently being grilled by the Sanhedrin. 

When Peter cried out denial number three, the rooster crowed, reminding Peter of Jesus’s words a few verses back about how this very event would occur (Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38). Of course, Peter argued strenuously with Jesus, assuring Him no such thing would happen. However, it did, nevertheless. Peter even called down curses and swore he didn’t know his Lord (Mark 14:71). 

But it was the escorting of Jesus out of the house of Caiaphas that finally broke His beloved disciple. Peter, no doubt, witnessed the condition of his Lord as He was surrounded by the Temple guards. Jesus’s face was probably bruised, maybe even bleeding from the blows suffered at the hands of the Temple guards and members of the Sanhedrin. 

Peter would have seen a look of sadness on Jesus’s face as well. Jesus was battling sorrow, Matthew tells us in chapter 26:37. And not just a simple sorrow, but great anguish and distress. To the point that His sweat became like drops of blood (Luke 22:44). In medical terms, it is called hematidrosis, a very rare disorder that is medically documented beyond scripture. For example, Leonardo Da Vinci wrote of soldiers sweating blood before going into battle. It is caused by a deep distress and anguish over something coming up, like facing a situation that may cost one his or her life. In these instances, the body floods the system with adrenaline and cortisol. This causes the famous “fight or flight” response. This physiological change is usually not harmful and can be helpful in one’s preservation. However, in rare cases, this rush of adrenaline and cortisol, especially if it is prolonged, can cause capillaries to rupture, and since they are near the sweat glands, the blood mixes with the sweat, giving the appearance of sweating blood, which is quite an apt description.³ And of course, we would expect Luke, a medical doctor himself and the one who documents this, to know what he is talking about.

Jesus knew what was coming. He knew He would be rejected by His own chosen people. He knew His disciples would scatter. Even in His time of anguish, in Gethsemane, Peter, James, and John couldn’t stay awake, and Jesus battled the flesh, Satan, fatigue, anguish, and most importantly, a growing sense of loneliness, which would culminate on the Cross when He would cry out, “My God! My God! Why have You forsaken Me” (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). 

It is at the beginning of the end, when Jesus steps out of Caiaphas’s house and looks at Peter—after the rooster had crowed—that Peter stepped outside the courtyard and wept bitterly (Luke 22:61-62). 

God is a God of Multiple Chances 

Peter eventually returns to the only thing he knows: fishing (John 21:1-3). He is confused, for sure. I believe he was disillusioned. And he was a defeated individual. He was the one who stood up amongst all the other disciples and proclaimed how he would never deny Jesus. He would never leave Jesus. He was the one who would die for Jesus. Yet, when the time came for him to stand up and be counted, he withered. He even called down curses, which was a way in Hebrew culture of attempting to validate your words. We do this sort of thing today: “Cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye!” It is a form of an oath, designed to make our words somehow more believable to the hearer. And ironically, Jesus denounced this behavior in Matthew 5:33-37 and said a person’s words should be enough. So, when you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No,” that should be sufficient because of your character. If your character is not in question, then there is no need to try and convince anyone you are telling the truth. 

This is why I believe the guilt Peter felt was insurmountable. He didn’t feel worthy any longer to be counted among the disciples. His true character had been displayed. And he was ashamed of it. So, he

left his new life and went back to his old one simply because he didn’t know what to do anymore. And I believe it wasn’t because he was disillusioned or angry with Jesus. He was feeling that way about himself. 

But there is hope. 

He is confronted by the risen Jesus and asked three times to feed and take care of Jesus’s sheep (John 21:15-19). Much is made about the word choice of Jesus in His three questions and three responses: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agape) Me more than these?” “Feed my lambs” (v. 15), “Simon, son of John, do you love (agape) Me?” “Take care of my sheep” (v. 16), and “Simon, son of John, do you love (philos) Me?” “Feed my sheep” (v. 17). However, there is another ironic, and can I say more important, twist which takes place in this exchange. 

Three times, the nation Israel denied God as their King. We’ve already examined those in 1 Samuel 8, in Matthew 2:16-18, and in Matthew 26:65-66. Their sin was eventually unpardonable, as we have already discussed. 

Peter also denied Jesus three times. However, his sin was not “the unpardonable sin.” He didn’t attribute the work of Jesus to Satan, thus rejecting God and His Word permanently, like the religious leaders in Matthew 26 did. Peter didn’t walk away from Caiaphas’s house, drawing a conclusion that Jesus was no longer needed or helpful, deciding to find his own path to salvation. Peter committed sin, to be sure. He may have even committed blasphemy, depending on the curses he called down and to whom they were directed. He also did something else Jesus warned His disciples not to do: deny Him before men (Matthew 10:33). However, Jesus said all blasphemies would be forgiven, except the unpardonable one. 

In this picture of Peter, we see what could have happened for the nation Israel personified in the person of Peter. Their sins, from Old Testament times right up until that moment in Matthew 26, were of the pardonable type. They too had denied God. They wanted to save their own skin, so to speak, by being like everybody else around them. They didn’t want to be associated with God, just like Peter didn’t want to be linked to Jesus, leading up to the rooster’s call. The nation Israel and Peter both wished to be anything but qadosh (different, sacred, holy) as God was qadosh in those moments in time. 

The difference was in their responses. 

The nation Israel did not wish to follow God. They never truly repented of their ways. They did not wish to “drop their nets,” so to speak. Instead, they wanted more nets, and ones that were just like the other nations around them. With each rejection, their hearts grew harder and harder until God was no longer King, nor would He ever be King again, even if it meant killing Him in the process in order to put an end, finally, to the nagging nudge of God, His Holy Spirit, and His Messiah. 

Peter, on the other hand, who is known as “the apostle with the foot-shaped mouth,” dropped his nets and followed Jesus. Yes, he sinned. On more than one occasion. He was arrogant. He was bullheaded. He was volatile. He was unpredictable. And he thought he was way more committed to Jesus than he actually was, which I believe explains why he wept bitterly in the end and returned to the world of fishing. He felt like a failure. His money wasn’t where his mouth was. 

Ever been there? 

In John 21, Jesus calls Peter by his Jewish name at this stage. Shimon, in the Hebrew (Simon is the Greek transliteration). He was no longer “Petros: The Rock” (Matthew 16:18). Jesus takes Peter back to his roots. His original name means “hearer.” Shimon needed to hear, again, the words of his Lord. He needed to get back to the beginning. Back to the times when dropping his nets and following Jesus seemed so right. 

Peter responds to Jesus’s first two inquiries by telling Him something interesting. When Jesus uses the word agape, Peter responds by using the Greek word for brotherly love instead, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love (philos) you” (John 21:15-16). After Jesus’s third inquiry, where He uses the word philos, Peter doesn’t respond immediately. The text says Peter was “grieved because He said to him a third time, ‘Do you love (philos) Me” (John 21:17; LSB)? In His third inquiry, Jesus was questioning if Peter loved (philos) Him with the lesser kind of love. 

In our vernacular, we could understand it better if Jesus had asked Peter the first two times if he loved Him, and Peter said in response, “Yes, Lord, You know that I like You.” “Like” is a far cry from “love.” And philos is a far cry from agape. But when Jesus asked Peter the third time if Peter "liked” Him (using the word Peter kept using), that’s when Peter was grieved. Jesus was now questioning this lesser kind of devotion, and the broken disciple felt horrible. 

I am convinced Peter thought Jesus didn’t believe him, for why would He keep asking the same question while lowering the bar in the process? However, I am also convinced something else was at work. Peter denied Jesus three distinct times. In those denials, he sinned three distinct times. He committed blasphemy three distinct times. So, he needed to repent three distinct times. 

So, Jesus asks Him the question a third time in verse 17, to which Peter replies, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (philos) you” (LSB). In Peter’s response, he said the “magic words,” if you will. When Peter said, “Lord, you know all things,” he was acknowledging Jesus as God. Only God knows all things. Jesus taught His disciples that (Matthew 24:36). Therefore, in his acknowledgement of Jesus as the Son of God, he did what the religious leaders of Israel could not do and would not do. 

Hence, we have a stark contrast here for us to see: Israel’s rejection was of God as King, culminating in the rejection of the only Savior who will ever exist (John 14:6). It was a sin that could not be forgiven, and as a result, it brought to an end the covenantal relationship between God and Israel, wherein Israel would be the conduit through which God would work to bring about salvation to the nations. 

The murder of Jesus established a New Covenant with a “New Chosen People of God,” a “holy nation,” as Peter calls it (1 Peter 2:9), the new spiritual “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).⁴ This is why Paul says there is no difference between Jews and Greeks anymore (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Circumcision of the flesh no longer counted as anything (Galatians 6:13-16). God’s prophecies in Ezekiel had come to pass (11:19; 36:26). It would take a circumcision of the heart to find everlasting life now. The hearts of stone (hard-heartedness, cold, lifeless) would be transformed into hearts of flesh (soft, warm, living), and He would put His Spirit in those who had the hearts of flesh (Acts 2; cf. John 16:5-15). 

These hearts of flesh must all abide by the New Covenant now, which doesn’t nullify the Old Testament, as Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20. He came to fulfill it the Law, and He did so. He actually brought about the salvation spoken of so often in the Old Testament. 

This new arrangement doesn’t nullify the people of Israel who are alive today either. They too can be saved, one by one, if they accept and acknowledge God’s Messiah as the One and Only Lord who “knows all things,” obeying God’s instructions and teachings, just as it was intended from the beginning. In other words, they must become like Shimon (Peter). God’s Chosen People no longer reside in a nation with borders. They are an ekklesia now. A Church. A Gathering without borders. 

Peter was given another chance, just like Israel was, but if he had rejected Jesus again and again to save his own skin, becoming more and more belligerent and hard of heart as he did, then he, too, would have been lost for good because the king of his life would have been a man. Himself. And he would have fallen under the curse of Jeremiah 17:5 (LSB):

Thus says Yahweh,

“Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind

And makes flesh his strength,

And whose heart turns away from Yahweh.” 

Therefore, we have a clear establishment of how God thinks about living apart from Him, rejecting Him, disobeying His Word, and living like the world. There are only two ways to live your life: In full abundant living by following Jesus wholeheartedly, or living after the world and rejecting Him. 

There’s no middle ground because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

 

Thought for the Week:

Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah? Do you believe He was God in the flesh? Do you believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and nobody can enter through the gates of Heaven unless they acknowledge Jesus and allow Him to be Lord of their life? 

You say, “Yes, I believe all of that.” 

If so, when confronted with a situation, like Peter was, wherein your relationship with Jesus will cost you dearly—possibly your life, how much do you actually believe? Peter believed, according to his own words, before Acts 2. But as we saw above, he failed, denying his allegiance to Jesus. Yet, after Acts 2, Peter was as bold as bold could be, and it eventually cost him is life, according to tradition, with him being crucified upside down because he claimed he was not worthy to be crucified like his Lord. 

As one author puts it, the depth of our belief in Christ is always measured by what we do.⁵ Not that it is all about doing things, but our belief is defined by whether or not we do what we say we believe. It’s not easy, especially when you are a soldier and you live in the enemy’s territory (Ephesians 6:10-18). But in every case, we either live up to our beliefs or down to them, as the case may be, because nothing else is possible. This is the nature of belief. 

So, what do you believe? And how deep does that belief run through your spiritual veins? 

The Kingdom of Heaven awaits your answer.

NEXT TIME:

We have spent the last twenty-nine weeks looking at The King and His Kingdom: Viewing This Life Through the Eyes of the Almighty. We have seen how God’s Chosen People rejected Him and opened the door for all people and nations. 

We will be taking a few weeks off as Kevin prepares for the next section of this Bible study series. In a few weeks, we will resume our study by looking at how God intended things to be from the very beginning and get a firm grasp of how sin disrupted those plans. Then, we will be able to understand Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount so much more. For when you understand these two “hubs” in Genesis and Matthew, everything else in scripture comes alive.

  

Endnotes 

1. In case you are unfamiliar with the term “synoptic gospels,” it refers to Matthew, Mark and Luke. The word “optic” means “to see,” and the prefix “syn-” means “the same.” These gospel accounts “see the same.” They record the story and ministry of Jesus similarly to one another, documenting many of the same stories, but also sometimes mentioning one that the others do not. This does not detract from them at all. Instead, it adds richness, for when pieced together, we get a wonderful chronology of the life and ministry of Jesus, told from different perspectives, as Matthew was primarily addressing a Jewish audience, Mark focused on a Roman audience, and Luke steers toward a Greek one.

The gospel of John, however, is entirely different in how it is arranged, and often has sections the other three do not. John’s audience was different from the others, and focused more on the theological aspect of Jesus’s ministry as opposed to a specific people group. This was obviously his intent in writing it, which accounts for why it is arranged the way it is. But, when you put all four together, you get “a beautiful tapestry,” if you will, of the life of Jesus, His ministry, His death, His resurrection, His commissioning of the disciples, and His ascension. 

2. This was illegal, by the way (Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17: 2-7; 19:15-21; Leviticus 19:15). The accused in a trial was not allowed to incriminate himself unless witnesses and evidence proved what he said was true. At that point, a confession would be considered an admission of guilt, much like it would be in our court system here in America.

The Sanhedrin at that moment—when Caiaphas tore his robes and said they don’t need any further proceedings—was actually denying that what Jesus said about Himself was true, hence the accusation of blasphemy being committed. The issue was they had no evidence to back that up. Therefore, the high priest and the other religious leaders were not only playing judge, they were playing the role of the prosecution and the jury as well. This was prohibited by Jewish Law in the Old Testament to prevent exactly what was happening. 

Even the false witnesses they brought in—who could not agree with themselves, by the way (Mark 14:59)—never mentioned anything about Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, so their testimony was not valid in this case. They just talked about Him tearing down the Temple and thinking He could rebuild a building in a mere three days that took years to construct. Of course, we know Jesus was talking about His body, not the physical Temple in Jerusalem. It would be in His body, and subsequently ours as well, where God dwells (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20). Therefore, on all counts, the Sanhedrin had it all wrong, and Jesus was telling the truth. 

However, when you are hell-bent on reaching a preferred verdict for the purpose of protecting your careers, advancing your causes, or covering up atrocities, the truth doesn’t matter. Only the outcome. This is not how God operates. This is the mind of Satan and all who follow him. So, when you see people stomping on truth in the name of whatever—even justice—to get to a decision that benefits their cause and purpose, know Satan is at work. You’ll see his fingerprints all over the supposed evidence. 

3. Higuera, Valencia. “Hematidrosis: Is Sweating Blood Real?” healthline.com. Reviewed by Elaine K. Luo, M.D. 2017 March 14. Web. 2022 July 29. <https://www.healthline.com/health/hematidrosis> 

4. Jackson, Wayne. "A Brief Study of the Word "Kingdom"." ChristianCourier.com. No Date. Web. 7 August 2020. <https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1348-brief-study-of-the-word-kingdom-a>

5. Willard, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. (Harper/SanFrancisco; New York, NY.), pp. 307-308.

Pictures courtesy of  Pixabay and Unsplash and the following photographers/artists:

Rooster - Unsplash by Dusan Veverkolog

Boat - Pixabay by Quang Nguyen vinh

Group of People - Pixabay by Joseph Redfield Nino

Chapter 4 – The Third Rejection of the King (Part 5 of 6)

The Sin That Cannot Be Forgiven 

In addition to this profound and horrible episode in the history of the nation Israel with the illegal arrest and trial of Jesus, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of committing blasphemy. How so? Jesus claimed to be God, which was a sin to be sure, if it was false. However, the ironic truth and twist in this entire scenario is that Jesus was telling the truth. 

Jesus came to reestablish God’s Kingship, whether Israel wanted to be a part of it or not. He prophesied. He quoted prophecies from the Old Testament. He performed miracles. He preached the good news to the poor. He declared what the Kingdom of Heaven was like. He even displayed power over creation, like when he calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee, provided food for thousands from just a handful of items, healed sick people no one else could cure, and raised people from the dead. Yet, despite all these displays of His deity, the Pharisees, teachers of the law, chief priests, and elders all ascribed his power to none other than Beelzebul (i.e., Satan), calling him demon-possessed. 

In Matthew 12:22-37 and Mark 3:20-30, Jesus explains just how imbecilic they sound by stating a house divided against itself cannot stand. Neither can a city, a nation, or a family, for that matter. Not even in the heavenly realms! Therefore, Jesus says, “And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason, they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:27-28; LSB). 

Jesus gave them a choice. Either, He was driving out demons by the power of Satan, or He was driving out demons by the power of the Spirit of God.

And if Jesus was using Satan’s power, He wants to know whose power the religious leaders had been using all this time because their implication was simple: Only God and Satan can drive out demons. If Jesus was using Satan’s power, then apparently, so were they, or otherwise, they would be claiming to be the Messiah, which they were not. However, if Jesus was indeed using the power of God, then His words were true. He was the Son of God, the Messiah, and God’s kingdom was at hand. Therefore, the religious leaders’ “sons” were the answer to the question, and thereby “judges” as to the truth. 

What a contrast! The sons of the religious leaders were apparently using Satan’s power to cast out demons (otherwise they would have had to claim to be the Messiah), while God’s Son was using the power of God (and He was claiming to be the Messiah).

Two Ironic Twists 

At this juncture, the religious leaders were in an old-fashioned pickle, theologically speaking. Not to mention the fact that Satan would have to be a moron to drive out his own demons. Why would he do that? He wanted to possess as many people as possible and drag them away from God. Exorcizing demons out of people would have the opposite effect, and we all know Satan is not a moron. He is a wily, ravenous, conniving snake (Ephesians 6:11; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 12:9). He’s good at what he does, and he’d never chance someone believing Jesus was driving out demons by the power of God by giving Jesus the power to do so. This would be extremely counterproductive to his evil schemes. 

However, if Jesus was using the power of God’s Holy Spirit to drive out demons, then it was evidence that He was who He said He was, and God was literally in the flesh, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecies of 9:1-7 and 61:1-2 before their very eyes. By saying Jesus’s ministry was “powered by Satan,” the religious leaders of Israel were in effect saying the prophecies of Isaiah—particularly the one from chapter 61 that Jesus quoted as having been fulfilled by Him coming to Earth (See Luke 4:21)—were satanic in nature. Jesus said He came to preach the good news to the poor, and inherent within that mission, Jesus performed miracles to validate His claims. The religious leaders saw those validations as authorized by Beelzebul. That was the true blasphemy being spoken in this trial scene, and that’s the first ironic twist in this scene. In Satan’s kingdom of men, people call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20-21). There is a way that seems right to such men, but it only leads to death (Proverbs 14:12). The religious leaders’ twisted view of reality ran contrary to the Kingdom of Heaven…even when God Almighty was standing right in front of them. It was definitely the blind leading the blind (Matthew 15:14).

The second ironic twist concerns the sin of blasphemy itself. According to Jesus, God is willing to forgive every blasphemy except one. You may have heard it put this way: “God forgives every sin, except one - the unpardonable sin.” He evens forgives blasphemy spoken against the Son of Man. However, Jesus said the only sin that cannot be forgiven is “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29). And that included the age in which Jesus spoke and the age to come, He said. 

There’s been a great deal of confusion about what “the unpardonable sin” is exactly. However, we have an excellent example of it right here before us. 

Jesus was asked if He was the Messiah. He claimed that He was. He said they would see Him—the Son of Man—seated at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64). 

When Caiaphas heard these words, he stood up, tore his robes, and proclaimed that Jesus had committed blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God. The truth was, Caiaphas—and all the religious leaders with him—were the ones who had committed blasphemy, not Jesus. And, their blasphemous act classified was the “unpardonable” kind. 

How so, you ask?

They had denied the work of the Holy Spirit.

The evidence was before them—literally, face-to-face—with them. They had seen Jesus’s miracles. He had performed thousands of them. They had heard His sermons. They had heard Him tell parables. They had talked with witnesses who had been the beneficiaries of His healing ministry. There was a mountain of evidence, pointing to the fact that Jesus actually was “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The long-awaited Messiah had come. God was standing there, in front of them, face-to-face, but they didn’t believe it. Instead, they rejected Him. Again. They said He was not the Messiah, thus He was not The Way. They proclaimed Him to be a deceiver instead of The Truth. They said He worked under the auspices of Satan, the progenitor of eternal death, instead of being The Life. In essence, they had rejected and concluded that Jesus was not God and that His words were not true. The opposite was allegedly the truth, according to their reasoning. 

When a person does this, what else can be done for him or her? It’s like a person who is handed the cure for their disease, but they see it as evil and throw it away. Oh, they try other remedies that don’t work and go to other doctors who cannot heal, but that one tried and true cure? They reject it as ineffective and thus useless. They have reasoned together in their human arrogance and determined the cure to be false. 

Or this same person does not take the cure because he or she does not believe an illness exists. So, they reject the cure for themselves because they are “healthy.” 

In either instance—a sick person rejecting the cure because they view it as ineffective and useless, or a sick person not believing he or she is sick—the person will die in their disease. Nothing else can be done. No matter how much the Holy Spirit tries to woo and convince, His redemptive work is rejected. 

This is where the Pharisees, teachers of the law, chief priests, and elders had arrived. In their eyes, Jesus was not the cure for their disease because they didn’t think they were sick (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31). In their minds, Jesus was the sick one by claiming to be the Son of God.

Therefore, they committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and in this horrific scene, Rejection #3 was complete. 

In 1 Samuel 8, the elders of Israel had rejected God as King, but to their credit, at least they just requested a new king to lead them. All they wanted was to make a switch. 

In the Second Rejection, things became more serious. Someone attempted to kill the One born King of the Jews in Matthew 2. The religious leaders of Israel didn’t initiate it (King Herod did), but they didn’t try to stop it either. Instead, they were indifferent and complicit all at the same time. 

However, in this Third Rejection of the King, in Matthew 26, the knives came out. The vitriol was real. It had been brewing for three years, and finally, they’d had enough. The vote was in, and even the crowds had spoken. They decided to have a convicted murderer and insurrectionist released from prison rather than allow “the one called King of the Jews” to go free. Instead, they cried out with one voice,

“Away with Him! Away with Him! Crucify Him!” (Matthew 27:20-23; Mark 15:12-13; Luke 23:18-21; John 19:12-16). 

The chief priests’ response to Pilate is the last nail in their coffin, if you will. Pilate asked plainly, “Shall I crucify your king?” To which the chief priests replied, “We have no king but Caesar” (emphasis added, John 19:15-16; LSB). 

Did you hear what they said? They pledged their allegiance to Caesar over God. Caesar was their king now. The same Caesar they hated for all the taxation and oppression was now their king? Does that even make sense? And remember, Caesar claimed to be deity, which they despised! 

So, ask yourself, “Who was committing blasphemy now?” 

As a result, God would never be King of Israel ever again. The days of a nation Israel were over. In a mere forty or so years later, in 70 A.D., another Caesar (who they lauded as their king forty years earlier) would come to Jerusalem and lay siege to it in an effort to end the Jewish war that had started in 66 A.D. The Temple would eventually fall to the Romans, and all that exists until this day is a tower and a wall, where Jews go to wail in remembrance. 

Satan gladly accepted the religious leaders’ coronation, for ultimately, they had made Satan king of the Jews by fully immersing themselves in the kingdom of men. In glee, Satan watched Jesus’s dreadful march up the Via Delarosa. He knew his time was limited, but he’d never tell the religious leaders.   

The ultimate act of blasphemy against the work of the Holy Spirit—the third and final rejection of God as King—cheered on by God’s chosen people. 

This was the irony of all theological ironies, for sure.

  

Thought for the Week 

It’s a sad state of affairs at this juncture of Israel’s history. God wanted them to be His chosen people. He wanted them to be His witnesses to all the other nations. He wanted to use them to reach the rest of the world with His message of salvation in the Old Testament times. 

In case you missed it, God had a message of salvation for Gentiles long before Jesus came on the scene. Remember Jonah? He preached to Nineveh, and the entire city repented, much to Jonah’s chagrin, I might add (Jonah 3). In 1 Kings 19-20, God had Elijah go back to Damascus and anoint some kings and announce his successor. This was the same region where he had just battled the prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth and subsequently fled because Jezebel was murdering every prophet of God she could find. Naaman left the presence of Elisha praising God and claiming the God of Israel to be the only true God (2 Kings 5). God even taught Nebuchadnezzar a lesson and received praise in return from the king of Babylon (Daniel 4). The Old Testament is filled with stories of how God rescued lost Gentiles, like Ruth, a Moabitess. 

However, Israel didn’t want to be part of that arrangement. They did not wish to be set apart, sacred, qadosh (i.e., holy). They wanted to be like the nations around them. 

How do we fit into God’s redemptive plan? I mean, those of us who are believers…do we wish to be like the others around us and not be bothered with the things of the Kingdom of Heaven? Or do we wish to be sacred and set apart for the work of being used by God in His redemptive plan for those around us? 

Only you and God know the answer to that question. And believe Me, He knows. Just like He did with Israel, sending prophet after prophet to warn them of the coming wrath, yet promising a remnant because of His covenant with Abraham. He knew they would eventually reject Him face-to-face three times, and each rejection would grow more and more indignant. For those who repented, they found redemption through His grace and mercy. For those who did not, weeping and gnashing of teeth await them. There are two roads: narrow and broad. There is “hot” or “cold.” Lukewarmness is not allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven Revelation 3:14-15). 

So, what is your answer? Remember, He already knows.

 

NEXT WEEK:

We conclude this chapter with one last twist. 

Pictures courtesy of  Pixabay and the following photographers/artists:

Truth by Gerd Altmann 

Crucifixion by lbrownstone

Wailing Wall by stinne24

Narrow Road by Tama66

Wide Road by Schwoaze

Chapter 4 - The Third Rejection of the King (Part 4 of 6)

 The Arrest and Trial of Jesus

 Just like a spy movie in the theaters, as Jesus nears Jerusalem, getting ready for His triumphal entry, the chief priests had been conniving behind the scenes. As we have learned in the last couple of weeks, they had already made up their minds. Jesus needed to die so Rome would not come with force and punish Israel (John 11). As Caiaphas said, better for one man to die than the rest of them. So like so many political trials, this particular judge and jury wanted a specific verdict. They just needed some facts and evidence to make that decision “legal.” Justice in reverse, for sure.

We learn in Matthew 26:14-16 (LSB), that Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me to deliver Him to you?” This question implies previous contact. How would Judas know to go to the chief priests and ask such a question if he had not already been approached with the concept of betraying Jesus in the first place? This is not a question the religious leaders would have broadcast to the masses, like an old, Wild West “Wanted” poster handed out all over town. As a matter of fact, the chief priests were concerned a public arrest would cause a riot (Matthew 26:3-5), so they had to finagle things, even use an insider who could somehow alert them as to Jesus’s whereabouts in order to capture Him at the most opportune and discreet time possible.

We all know the story. Jesus tells his disciples during the Lord’s Supper that one of them is going to betray Him. They all deny it, but Jesus states that the one who eats after Him will be the one. In John’s account, Jesus offered the bread to Judas. At that moment, Judas could have declined, but he took it, and the text tells us, “And after the piece of bread, Satan then entered into him” (John 13:27; LSB). Then, in verse 30, Judas got up and left to carry out the hellish deed.

Later that evening, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas leads a large mob, armed with swords and clubs—hand-picked by the chief priests, teachers of the law, the Pharisees, and the elders (Matthew 26:47)—to arrest Jesus quietly in the middle of the night. Because Jesus had eleven other men with Him, it is understandable that the chief priests and teachers of the law felt they had to have Jesus and his band of men outnumbered so they would not attempt an all-out rebellion.

Our Lord and His disciples were outnumbered and outside the city gate. They were vulnerable, and Judas knew exactly where to find them.

It wasn’t enough to simply point and say, “There’s your man.” Judas walked up and betrayed Jesus with, of all things, a kiss. Think about that for a second. Judas kissed the face of “God in the flesh,” which was usually intended to be an act of respect, devotion, and honor, by the way, in that culture. Judas, however, knowingly did so as an act of betrayal, disrespect, and dishonor.

And Judas was possessed by Satan while doing so.

This scene became a perfect picture of God’s chosen people, in their utter depravity and deceitfulness, being led away from God by Satan himself, standing in front of the literal and figurative face of God. Not to worship Him. Not to honor Him. Not to be in awe of Him. Instead, it was to betray Him. Betray His faithfulness. Betray His love. Betray His grace. Betray His mercy.

When Jesus was seized by the guards, according to John 18:10, Peter steps forward, draws his sword, and takes a swing at the servant of the high priest, Malchus. Peter, not a skilled soldier, wasn’t being cute by cutting off the Malchus’s right ear.

Zorro, Peter was not.

Surely, Peter was going for the man’s head in utter rage with a heavy sword that probably felt awkward in the fisherman’s hands. Malchus, seeing the blade coming, ducked, not getting completely out of the way, obviously.

Did Jesus encourage the rest of His disciples to join Peter? Was He launching the rebellion against Rome they all had been anticipating since Jesus walked out of the Jordan River at His baptism?

No.

Instead, Jesus rebukes Peter, telling him to put his sword away, for those who live by the sword die by it too. He then reminds His disciples that if He wanted to, He had twelve legions of angels at His disposal, which was plenty of might to quell the mob and their measly weapons. If one angel could wipe out 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night (see 2 Kings 19:35), imagine what an army of at least twelve-thousand angels could do?

However, if Jesus did so, He stated in Matthew 26:54 (LSB), “How will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

Jesus follows up Peter’s act of savagery with a miracle of compassion by reaching out and restoring Malchus’s ear to its original, healthy state.

Jesus then turns to the mob in verses 55-56 and asks them why they came with swords and clubs anyway? He’d taught in the temple courts. They could have arrested Him then. However, He goes on to inform that even these actions fulfill Scripture.

You would think the miraculous healing of Malchus, coupled with all the thousands of miracles Jesus had performed over the course of three years, would have caused the mob to pause and rethink their mission. Jesus’s disciples, too, for that matter.

At this moment, unfortunately, Jesus’s disciples do not bow in worship. They do not kneel, genuflect, or anything. They fled, instead, abandoning Him in His time of need. Which brings us to one important point to make. Jesus’s disciples obviously were not important in this overall scheme of the chief priests, because the mob didn’t chase after them. This leads us to conclude that the chief priests and teachers of the law apparently believed that if they could kill Jesus, His little “cult” would die with Him.

The End Justifies the Means

Jesus is formerly taken into custody and escorted to the first of six trials. He had three religious trials before the Jews and three political trials before Pilate (twice) and Herod.

For the first trial. He was taken to house of Annas, a former high priest and father-in-law of Caiaphas (John 18:12-13). There, Annas questions Jesus about His disciples and His teachings, to which Jesus replies, “I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues or in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; behold, they know what I said” (vv. 19-21; LSB). All Jesus did was question the legality of the proceedings.

When Jesus said those words, one of the nearby officials struck Jesus in the face and said, “Is that the way you answer the high priest” (LSB)? Jesus said, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike me” (vv. 22-23)? In other words, “If you are so confident I misspoke, put your accusations on record. If not, then you are abusing a prisoner, which violates the Torah” (cf. Exodus 23:2).

With no evidence to use against Jesus, Annas sent Him to see Caiaphas (John 18:24) while the Sanhedrin looked for any evidence against Him. But Matthew and Mark both state they could not find any, although they produced many false witnesses (Matthew 26:57-59; Mark 14:55-59). Mark even goes do far to say the false witnesses’ testimony didn’t even agree. Of course, that is how lies operate, so we are not surprised.

Finally, two of the false witnesses come forward. They claimed that Jesus said He was able to destroy the temple in Jerusalem and rebuild it in three days (vv. 60-61). Mark puts it this way in 14:58 (LSB): “We ourselves heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this sanctuary made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’”

Like all false witness testimony revolving around the words of the accused, it’s all in the way you interpret those words, or in this case, try to make the accused sound by putting words in his mouth. False testimony also likes to pull statements out of context, thus making them say something they didn’t. This testimony was false because what Jesus said was entirely different from the bogus witnesses’ testimony.

The Real Words of the Actual Event

In John 2:13-25, Jesus goes into the temple courts and clears the temple with a whip. He’s upset that they had turned His Father’s house into a place of dishonest business dealings. At that moment, Jesus was attacking the entire Jewish system, set up by the chief priests—principally Annas. A system which took advantage of fellow Jews who had traveled to Jerusalem, in this particular case, for the Feast of Passover.

The context must be understood in order to fully understand Jesus’s words.

The entire Levitical priestly system in Jerusalem had become corrupt. By this time in Israel’s history, if you were a Jewish worshipper who had traveled to Jerusalem for a feast, you were required to bring with you an offering, based on your economic status. If you didn’t have an offering to bring or could not bring one for whatever reason, you could purchase an offering in the temple courts at an exorbitant rate, of course.

Keep in mind that your dove or lamb or whatever your offering happened to be had to be “without blemish.” When you entered the temple courts, if you brought your own, your offering was inspected by the temple priests to see if it met their questionable Levitical standards. In most cases, the offering was deemed to have a blemish, so the worshippers would have to purchase another offering from the priests that had already been “certified.”

How convenient.

In addition to this, the temple treasury did not accept foreign currency. Most travelers would arrive with the coins of Rome. These were not accepted. They bore the image of Caesar, which was considered idolatry because the Caesars considered themselves deity.

Therefore, if you were a Jewish sojourner, arriving at the temple with your Roman coinage, the priests would demand that you exchange it for Hebrew currency. Of course, there was an exchange rate, much like we have today, and within that exchange rate, the priests exacted a fee which resulted in the worshipper not receiving his full amount. Therefore, not only did you get gouged when you purchased your “approved” offering at an inflated price, but then you lost even more money when you exchanged your foreign currency for the temple shekels. And we must note here that it was okay for the temple priests and their people to accept, handle, and deal in Roman currency during this entire process.

How convenient.

Now do you understand Jesus’s frustration? The place where His chosen people were to come to worship God had been turned in a crooked market run by none other than the Levitical priesthood, who took advantage of the very people these priests were supposed to help.¹

The priests knew what Jesus was doing. They must have recalled the text in Ezekiel 43:1-12, where the Son of Man was given directions on how to reestablish the temple and set it right again by expelling all who had prostituted themselves by worshipping idols. The reason why it seems clear they recalled such Old Testament passages is because of their request. They ask Jesus for a miraculous sign in order for Him to display His authority to do what He did. In other words, they knew Jesus wasn’t sent by the “Roman health department” or Rome’s version of the IRS. You don’t request the health inspector or the tax man to do something miraculous to prove their authority. They are just humans doing human jobs. However, if the person clearing the temple was doing so as the Son of Man, then you’d want to know if He was legitimately the Son of Man. And just so you don’t miss it, Just a few verses before this event, Jesus refers to Himself as just that, “the Son of Man” (John 1:51), thus aligning Himself with the passages in the Old Testament, like Ezekiel 43, proving He is the Son of Man.

In response to their request, Jesus tells them, “Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). He would be crucified, buried, and resurrected. A miracle, for sure. However, the chief priests and teachers of the law were blinded by their corruption, their hard hearts, and their total allegiance to Satan, thus they totally missed the promise of a miracle. They thought He was talking about rebuilding the temple in which they currently stood (John 2:20).

Back to the Trials

Therefore, getting back to the trial in Matthew 26, these false witnesses, based on their so-called evidence and first-hand, eyewitness accounts, misspoke. They testified that Jesus was going to tear down the temple in Jerusalem and rebuild another one, similar to the current one, but different. And do so in three literal days. An absurd notion.

At this point, Caiaphas, the high priest, stood and said to Jesus, “Do you not answer? What are these men testifying against you” (v. 62; LSB)? However, Jesus remained silent.

Then, Caiaphas says something very interesting in verse 63 (LSB): “I put You under oath by the living God, that you tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” First, he asks Jesus, in essence, to speak the truth under an oath to Himself, the living God. He then asks Jesus if He is the Messiah, the Son of God. In other words, Caiaphas understood what Jesus meant when He said He was able to tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days. Only one person could do all of that: God. Not only is that true, but to make the logical and theological leap between the what Jesus actually said in John 2 (of which I am convinced Caiaphas knew) and Jesus claiming to be the Messiah shows that Caiaphas knew exactly what Jesus meant. How else would Caiaphas know to link “destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days” to “Tell us if you are the Christ,” unless he completely understood what Jesus was truly claiming?

Under oath, to Himself, I might add (“the living God”), Jesus tells Caiaphas, and ultimately to all who are listening, that He is the Messiah, and that “hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (v. 64; LSB). Jesus spoke the truth, and He did so under oath to the living God. And here again is the “Son of Man” reference, being made by Jesus, just like in the early part of His ministry and quoted in John 1:51. The bookends are now complete. The Son of Man has come to destroy the temple of stone and rebuild it into a living stone (1 Peter 2:4-13), wherein Jesus is the cornerstone laid in Zion (Isaiah 28:16). From the beginning to the end, whether it be the three years of His earthly ministry or for all eternity, He is the Word, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ, God in the flesh, the God of the universe, the God over all Creation, and the King of kings and Lord of lords.

However, Caiaphas didn’t see it that way. He tore his robes, which was an act of shock and surprise, even dismay at what was considered horrible or unbelievable news.

What was Caiaphas so upset about? “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy. What do you think” (vv. 65-66; LSB)?

The entire lot agreed in verse 66. He deserved death!

The Sanhedrin then proceeded to spit on Jesus. They struck Him with their fists. They slapped Him and then said mockingly, “Prophesy to us, O Christ. Who is the one who hit you” (v. 68)?

The sinful ideology of Israel’s forefathers in 1 Samuel 8 had now infiltrated the entire Jewish community, fully corrupting the leadership. Satan completely owned them. God was standing face-to-face with Caiaphas and all the members of the Sanhedrin—the ruling, religious leaders of God’s chosen people. They were meeting illegally in Caiaphas’s house, as it is stated that Peter had to wait outside Caiaphas’s courtyard, which would have been in front of the chief priest’s expensive home (poor people didn’t have courtyards; see Matthew 26:58). This “trial” at Caiaphas’s house was after they had taken Jesus to see Annas at his house (John 18:13), which was also highly illegal. It also must be understood that they were conducting these trials during the Feast of Passover, another illegality. Trials were supposed to be held in the temple, not during religious festivals, and there were very specific rules and regulations about how to conduct them so the accused received a fair trial (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17:2-7; 19:15-21).²

God was in the flesh, right in front of them, and they didn’t recognize Him. They didn’t recognize His words either. They had so degraded the Torah with their own interpretations and traditions, their own political affiliations, and their own instinct for survival amongst an oppressive empire, that when Jesus spoke plainly—and did so with authority and not as the teachers of the law (Matthew 7:28)—they couldn’t truly hear His words. Their eyes were blind. Their ears could not hear (Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 13:11-17). They wanted to be like the other nations around them, and sadly, they had completely succeeded.

 

Thought for the Week:

It is truly a shame how the nation Israel slid from the top of Mt. Sinai and into the Abyss of Hell. Judas became a poster child for her deceit. The chief priests and scribes had become the fulfillment of the elder’s wishes in 1 Samuel 8.

Yet, when we look out across the landscape of Christianity today, things are looking eerily similar. It seems more and more “believers” are running from the Church. Poll after poll marks how bigger, more mainline denominations are seeing their numbers dwindle as they fight over social issues and the believability of the Scriptures. God is being replaced with our own “kings,” so we can be like the other nations around us. We preach messages and tickle itchy ears. We dabble in politics to manipulate the masses for the secular good (although we often try to spiritualize it). We spend more time worrying about the state of our country than the state of the souls around us. Our church leaders exchange the monies of worshippers for expensive houses and lavish lifestyles. And worshippers come to worship God with hearts of stone instead of hearts of flesh.

And heaven forbid someone should stand up for the Truth and preach Jesus as The Way, the Truth, and the Life, and how nobody gets to the Father except through Jesus. He will be labeled a “hatemonger,” along with every other name in the book. His words will be twisted to say what they did not say, and he will be placed on trial in the courtroom of public opinion. He will be guilty, regardless of the truth, and they will spew vile curses from their lips. The crowds will attempt to shout Him down and clamor for his removal from his church, his ministry, or whatever, as a means of silencing him. He will be Twitterized, Facebooked, Snapchatted, and TikTokked to death.

However, take heart. This path looks very similar to the one Jesus trod, does it not? And Jesus also said that if you live a Beatitude life, persecution can be expected (Matthew 5:3-12).

And rewards await those who are faithful and obedient to the end.

 

NEXT WEEK:

We will look at the sin that cannot be forgiven. 

 

Endnotes

 

1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke write that Jesus did this again later in His ministry when he entered Jerusalem during His last week on earth (Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:12-19; Luke 19:45-48), thus causing many Bible detractors to claim the Bible is in error. “Was it one temple cleansing or two? they ask. They see it as an error on the part of the gospel writers. However, when you begin to see how God uses events to establish His Kingship, things become much clearer. There were two separate temple cleansing accounts. One near the beginning of Jesus’s earthly ministry, and one near the end. Bookmarks, if you will, denoting the Son of Man’s work of reestablishing the temple as God’s Most Holy Place as is spelled out in Ezekiel 43:1-12. However, with Jesus’s words in John 2, it is clear Ezekiel and Jesus are talking about a different arrangement moving forward, and the reason why this must take place—i.e., God dwelling in the hearts and spirits of men as opposed to physical temples build by the hands of men—is because of the corruption and utter sinfulness of the present system. God calls it “prostitution” in Ezekiel 43:7. The chief priests and teachers of the law had prostituted themselves ultimately to Satan by rejecting God, as we have established thus far in this blog series.   

It must be noted that there are differences in the two cleansings as well. In John’s, he mentioned oxen and sheep while the other gospel writers do not. He says Jesus made a whip out of cords, which was something not mentioned in the other accounts. He told the priests selling doves to get them out of the temple. The disciples remember Psalm 69:9 (LSB), which says, “For zeal for your house has consumed me.” However, John does not include Jesus’s quotations of the passages in Isaiah 56:7 (LSB, emphasis added): “For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples,” (insinuating more people than just the Jews), nor does he include Jeremiah 7:11, calling it a “robbers’ den.” 

From the beginning of Jesus’s ministry until the very end, Jesus was all about setting things right and reestablishing God’s Kingship, which meant right worship of God must take place in a clean, holy, sacred, set apart, qadosh temple. One not made of hands or stone, but one made of flesh. 

 

2. There are many things we could say about the illegality of Jesus’s trials, but the discussion would not be pertinent to this portion of our blog series.

 

Pictures courtesy of the following artists and websites:

"gavel" by Quince Creative (Pixabay)

"coins ancient Rome" by papazachariasa (Pixabay)

"The Way" by Tim Wildsmith (Unsplash)