Class Notes: 5/6/2015

Mark 14:57-68 Jesus faces the kangaroo court; As Jesus prophesied, Peter denies Jesus 3 times

In our Study of Mark we are in Mark 14:57-59; where the kangaroo court is trying to find something to charge Jesus with so they can convict Him and sentence Him to death.

We saw the in a Jewish court there had to be 2 or 3 corroborating witness for a conviction and they couldn't get there because the witnesses were all liars.

When we left off a false witness had accused Him of saying that He would destroy the Jewish Temple and rebuild it in 3 days.

Mark 14:60-61a; The high priest challenged Jesus to respond but He refused. There is no point to responding to a kangaroo court that has already decided to convict and condemn without any evidence. His silence frustrated the court and brought the illegal proceedings to a halt.

We see from this that when there was no one representing truth there is no need to respond to any false allegations. Just refuse to answer because a kangaroo court is not interested in truth it will only do what the satanic political mob bosses want it to do.

This is characteristic of the "end times" or "last days" of a client nation because of pervasive negative volition to God's Word. Isa 59:1-16; Rom 1:18-32; 2Tim 3:1-9;

No one is interested in the truth they are so self absorbed that they only care about advancing their own personal agenda regardless of the consequences.

Mark 14:61b; Because Jesus refuses to respond, the High priest judge then changes tactics and puts Jesus under oath and demands an answer. He kept on asking repeatedly (imperfect active indicative of eperotao ) "Are you the Christ the son of the blessed one? Net note 83

This is something that no judge has the right to do in any legitimate system of law under divine institution number 4. It is unlawful to put a person under oath in order to force him to condemn himself.

With the words "Are you the Christ, the Son of God?" the Judge illegally puts Jesus under oath so he has to tell the truth, and in doing so as far as they are concerned, He incriminates Himself because they refuse to believe the truth.

This entire proceeding was illegal. It was held at night that was contrary to Jewish law that states that all trials must be held during the day.

There was no council for the defense except as we will see in the Roman trial where Pontius Pilate takes Jesus' side and acts as council for the defense.

There was illegal procedure in the courtroom. In attempting to procure an indictment they deliberately seek false witnesses and they deliberately encourage perjury.

The judge attempts to get the accused to incriminate Himself under oath. The judge and the jury are prejudiced. We will see that there is violence in the courtroom and they convict Him and pronounce a sentence of death without a proper indictment or a proper trial.

When there are evil rulers such as these there is no justice in the land much like is happing in our country today where because of the mob the kangaroo courts are charging police officers for doing their job.

Mark 14:62; He is under oath now so He has to tell the truth and He tells the truth because He cannot lie. He is going to the cross and He has to be perfect, and if He lies He can't go to the cross. So the issue of the cross is at stake here so He says " "I am."

Then He goes on to get to the true issue. He goes from acknowledging that He is the Son of God to telling them what is going to happen after that. so He goes on to tell them what is going to happen after He goes to the cross because He knows he is going there because it is in the Divine decree.

He knows that this whole trial is a farce and the true issue is what is on the other side of the cross, His resurrection, ascension and session. Satan was present in the courtroom and what He tells them is for the benefit of unseen angels who are listening in as well as for the people who hear him.

He goes on to say; "You shall see the Son of Man." A title that emphasizes His humanity that dies on the cross. "Sitting (the doctrine of His session after His resurrection and ascension) on the right hand of power (the omnipotent power of God the Father, and coming in the clouds of heaven ( in the second advent)."

He by-passes the cross knowing that these people have and will continue to reject the cross but also knowing that they are definitely familiar with such passages as Psa 110:1; where "the Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand."

His session resolves the angelic conflict and in His "coming in the clouds" at the Second Advent He deposes Satan and removes the demons from the earth.

These are the issues for the unseen angels who are invisibly gathered in the courtroom while simultaneously addressing the issue that is relevant to the people in the room who have already rejected and will continue to reject Him and His work on the cross as presented in the Tnach even after He fulfills the prophesy it reveals.

In fact these same unbelievers will observe the Passover ritual that represents Jesus on the cross while simultaneously rejecting Him. This is a classic example of rote ritual without inward reality. Matt 15:8-9;

This is the same thing that all too often is occurring in the churches in the USA today and that is why our nation is in such a desperate situation.

The fact that they "will see" does not mean Jesus will return in their lifetimes. Rather it refers to their bodily resurrection in judgment at the great white throne where Jesus will judge those who were judging Him and it will be unmistakably clear to them exactly who it was that they condemned to death in their kangaroo court.

Mark 14:63; At His statement Caiaphas, the Judge loses his temper, something no judge should ever do. You cannot be angry and judge a case objectively as required for justice to be served.

He was so angry at Jesus' statement that he forgot the law that forbade a high priest to tear his garments (Lev 21:10;), and he tore his clothes. He was so angry He was apoplectic.

The present active participle tells us that he was so livid with anger that he kept on repeating "what further need have we of witnesses?" To him, Jesus' words blasphemed God because He was claiming rights and powers that belonged exclusively to God.

He did not believe Jesus' statement of fact and considers it blasphemy so in his opinion there is no longer any need for witnesses because in his view, Jesus had convicted Himself with His own words.

It would be blasphemy if the statement was a lie but since Jesus' words were true they are not blasphemy. Caiphas mistook a statement of fact and construed it to be a lie and therefore considered it blasphemy even though it was not.

Mark 14:64; He then asks the other members of the Sanhedrin what they thought. The Mosaic Law prescribed a sentence of death by stoning for blasphemy (Lev 24:15-16;).

Without further investigation the high priest called for a verdict from the Sanhedrin and since in their locked in negative volition they had no objections they unanimously condemned Him to death.

Mark 14:65; The "courtroom" then degenerates into a violent mob scene that demonstrates this kangaroo court's inability to mete out justice.

Some of the Sanhedrin members demonstrated their contempt with mockery and physical abuse. To spit in someone's face was an act of total derision, repudiation and a gross personal insult (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 30:10; Isa. 50:6).

Because He claimed to be Messiah they blindfolded Him, struck Him with their fists and demanded that He prophesy by telling them who had hit Him. This reflects a traditional test of Messiah based on their interpretation of Isa 11:2-4;

The true Messiah would know this without the need to see but Jesus refused to respect them or their attempts to test Him and remained silent.

This was a disgusting and shameful demonstration of evil that completely repudiates the validity of the court and the trial. These people were operating under the same evil motivation as their father the devil who hates truth. John 8:44-45; and it was unbecoming of a nation that had the Mosaic Law as its constitution.

God holds client nations to a higher standard of responsibility for the injustice that occurs in their courtrooms. Client nation USA will also be held to this higher standard and will be severely judged for injustice and unrighteousness of our courts.

The supreme court is in the process of rendering a verdict on a new "definition" of marriage. If they rule against God's definition of marriage under divine establishment #2 and #3 our nation will come under severe censure and discipline from the supreme court of heaven.

It's one thing for individuals to individually choose to sin under divine establishment #1 it's entirely another when it becomes the "law" of the land under divine establishment #4 because at that time the government (divine establishment #4) becomes coercive and that becomes an egregious threat to divine establishment #1,#2 and #3.

It does not get much worse than that so God will quickly judge our nation by waging a war against us. James 4:6; but before He does He will tell His people to leave NOW and don't look back. Gen 19:15-17;

God's people need to be prepared for this at least in their thinking so they will move out with no delay if it becomes necessary. Mark 13:15-16;

Once God's people have escaped God will render judgment. Gen 19:24; It did not work out well for the people of Sodom and it is blind arrogance to think our nation will be any less accountable.

At this point Mark's narrative takes us from the "courtroom" where Jesus is being railroaded, outside and down to the courtyard where we see the fifth step in Peter's fall.

We left Peter as he was warming himself by the fire in the courtyard with the temple guards after following Jesus from a distance. Mark 14:54;

Mark 14:66-67; One of the high priest's servant girls, possibly the inner courtyard's doorkeeper approached Peter while he warmed himself by the fire in the courtyard that was down below the upstairs room where Jesus' trial was taking place.

After she looked at him closely, she blurted out, You also, John was also there,(John 18:15;) were with that Nazarene Jesus. If Peter hadn't run so far away in fear he could have been watching from inside the courtroom with John rather than from a distance with the guards by the fire.

Mark 14:68; He pretended complete ignorance. It was a complete disavowal of any knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ from one who we have seen just a few hours before had said that if necessary he would die with Jesus.

She correctly identified Peter as a disciple but he refused to acknowledge his relationship to Jesus out of fear for his safety.

His denial was a common Jewish legal expression, literally translated, "I neither know nor understand what you are saying." To try to avoid further risk of being identified he went out of the courtyard into the entryway that that led to the street so he would be less visible.

Nearly all major ancient Greek manuscripts and early versions include the words "and the rooster crowed" at the end of verse 68. Net note 95

This evidence plus the words "the second time" in verse 72 favor inclusion of these words in this verse.

Only one rooster crowing is mentioned in the parallel passages ( Matt. 26:74; Luke 22:60; John 18:27) these words were probably omitted from Mark very early by some scribes in an attempt to conform to the parallel passages.

But Mark who was working with Peter on his book was in this case, more specific than the other Gospel writers, probably because of Peter's vivid recollection of the details of his denials of Jesus that were painfully seared into his memory.

© Copyright 2017, Michael Lemmon Bible Ministries. World Rights Reserved.