The Real Reason for Jesus' Execution - Part 1

PDF

Since the first DNA exoneration took place in 1989, some 375 convictions have been overturned in the US through DNA evidence. Twenty-one of those wrongly convicted people were on death row. The average number of years that those who had wrongfully served in prison served was 14 years. The average age of those who were exonerated at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27. 

We live in a world in which justice is hard to establish. I'm grateful for our justice system and those who are involved in it, and I think they get it right more often than they get it wrong, but we live in a fallen, imperfect world, and it's hard.

So sadly, phrases like travesty of justice and miscarriage of justice are part of the landscape of our judicial system. Throughout history, there have been many wrongful convictions based on wrong testimony or faulty evidence. And sadly, there have also been deliberate miscarriages of justice. 

Every page of human history is stained with injustice. But the greatest travesty of justice in human history happened to the one person who was the most profoundly innocent, Jesus of Nazareth. That's what Mark wants us to see in his description of the events that unfolded in the early hours of that awful Friday morning that our Lord was crucified.

Let's read it together. Mark 14, I'll begin in verse 53. 

They led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together. Peter had followed Him in a distance, right into the

courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at the fire. Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do you not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against you?” But He kept silent and did not answer. Again, the high priest was questioning Him and saying to Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”  Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. How does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Some began to spit at Him and to blindfold Him and to beat Him with their fists and to say to Him, “Prophesy!” And the officers received Him with slaps in the face. 

The trial of Jesus Christ before the religious leaders of the nation was a gross miscarriage of justice. But it was a trial that did two things. First of all, it proved His innocence. And secondly, it established His true identity. You see, the leaders intended His trial to establish His guilt. But instead, it proved His spotless innocence. 

In Mark's record of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin, we just read together, as it unfolds this week and next, we're going to discover four crucial insights that prove Jesus' innocence and establish His real identity. The first insight that Mark lays out for us here, let's call it the legal process behind Jesus' crucifixion. The legal process behind Jesus' crucifixion. Verse 53, “They led Jesus away to the high priest.”

Now, any one of the gospels doesn't tell the entire story, but only the portion they've chosen to get their theme across. However, the gospels put together present a cohesive picture of what happened that night. Jesus' legal ordeal began with his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, probably around midnight on Thursday night. That arrest was followed by a series of six judicial proceedings. First, there were three Jewish ecclesiastical trials. Those are documented in the New Testament.

The first was a simple arraignment before Annas. Only John records that after the Roman cohort and the Jewish police force from the temple had arrested Jesus in the Garden, they took Him first to Annas. This would have been around midnight to 1 a.m. on that Friday morning. Annas' house was in the exclusive upper part of the city of Jerusalem, and it was there at Annas' house that the first phase of the Jewish trial took place. And it was at his gate where Peter's first denial occurred.

While Caiaphas, his son-in-law, assembled the Sanhedrin for an unprecedented middle of the night session, Annas questioned Jesus in the courtyard just outside his home. Undoubtedly, he did so both out of curiosity, but even more importantly in a desire to uncover evidence that could be used against Jesus. 

Who was this man, Annas? Annas was the most powerful Jewish man in Israel. He had served as high priest already for nine years. Five of his sons would eventually serve as high priest. And his son-in-law, Caiaphas, was the current high priest and would serve for many years. When you think about Annas, or Caiaphas for that matter, but when it comes to Annas, don't think of him primarily as a religious man, even though he occupied the office of high priest. He was instead a powerful, ruthless politician. He was a kind of godfather in first century Palestine. It was to this man that the guard first took Jesus. As in our own legal system, the accused was presumed innocent until proven guilty. So, an arrest had to be followed shortly by an arraignment. An arraignment is that legal process by which a formal criminal charge is made against the person before a judge. Technically then, this hearing before Annas was Jesus' arraignment. I don't expect you to remember all of this, but last year on Palm Sunday, we studied the hearing before Annas, and we discovered then that it was illegal in almost every way. If you're curious, you can go back and review that.

Annas' questioning of Jesus, however inappropriate legally, did allow time for Caiaphas to assemble the Sanhedrin. It's very possible that Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas shared a common courtyard. That was very common thing in the first century world, and particularly in Jerusalem. And they likely shared that courtyard together. Now, even if they didn't share a courtyard, you have to understand that they wouldn't have lived far apart, because the upper city of the ancient city of Jerusalem was the only part of ancient Jerusalem where the wealthy and the influential lived. Location has always been the key for real estate. It was then. That was a hill that was swept by afternoon breezes off the Mediterranean. So, it's where the wealthy built their homes. This is where their homes would have been. They're close together, again, if not probably sharing a courtyard.

So Annas then sends Jesus across the courtyard to the house of his son-in-law Caiaphas. Annas was officially transferring Jesus' case to the Sanhedrin, as if he had found evidence to indict Jesus. This is the illegal arraignment of Jesus Christ. It was a joke, a miscarriage of justice, as we discovered at length last year. 

But that came then to the second phase of the Jewish trial, and that was a hearing before the Sanhedrin. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that immediately following the questioning by Annas, probably around 2 a.m., there was a meeting of the Sanhedrin, or at least a quorum of the Sanhedrin, in the house of the High Priest, Caiaphas. It reads like most, if not all of them were there, but at least it would have been a quorum for it to have been a legal gathering. This is the  trial, the second Jewish trial, is the one described in our text that we're going to consider together today and next week. 

The third phase of the Jewish trial, reported by Matthew, Mark and John, is a formal session of the Sanhedrin. This took place in their normal meeting place on the temple grounds, just after the first sign of light on the eastern horizon, which was prescribed by law. They couldn't meet in the dark, so they had to meet after at least the light had begun to break on the distant horizon. This would likely have been on that April morning, around 5 to 5:30 a.m. on that Friday morning, and it was with the entire Sanhedrin present. Luke gives the fullest account of this proceeding. 

Now, the charge throughout the Jewish trials was blasphemy. And that was the formal charge brought against Jesus at the third proceeding after daybreak. He was found guilty of blasphemy, and as a result of that, He was immediately taken to Pilate. Why? Because under Roman law, the Sanhedrin could not put anyone to death. That meant for Jesus to die, two things had to happen. First of all, there had to be a change in jurisdiction. The Romans had to be involved. Secondly, there had to be a change in the charge. Why? Because the Romans weren't going to put anyone to death for blasphemy against the Jewish religion.

So, the Jewish leaders take Jesus to Pilate. Change of jurisdiction. The Romans can execute. And they change the charge against Jesus from blasphemy to sedition. Turn to Luke. Luke chapter 23, verse 1, “The whole body of them got up and brought Jesus before Pilate.” After that third Jewish trial, at daybreak on Friday morning, they bring Jesus to Pilate. Verse 2, “They began to accuse Him, saying, ‘We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar.’” There it is. “And saying that He Himself is Christ, [Messiah] a king.” Verse 5, “They kept on insisting, saying, ‘He stirs up the people.’” This is about sedition. This is about insurrection.

Go to verse 13, “Pilate summoned the chief priest and the rulers and the people, and said to them, ‘You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, . . . having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him.’”

So, blasphemy in the Jewish trials and the charge changes to sedition in the Roman trials. Shortly after that third Jewish trial, as we just see here in Luke 23, the entire Council brings Jesus to the Romans. Change of jurisdiction, change of charge.

There followed three Roman criminal trials. Three Roman criminal trials. The first trial is before Pilate. It's recorded in all four gospels. The second trial follows shortly before Herod Antipas. This is recorded only by Luke.

When Pilate heard that Jesus was from Galilee, and therefore under Herod's jurisdiction, he decides to get rid of this political hot potato and send Jesus to Herod, who was in Jerusalem for the Passover. Herod questioned Jesus; you can read the account. He pronounced Him innocent, according to Luke 23:15, and returned Him to Pilate.

And that brings us to the third trial before Pilate. In this trial, Pilate again declares Jesus innocent, but then unjustly condemns Him to death. Again, the charge in the Roman trials was sedition. Listen carefully, this is really important as you read this throughout the week. The crucial point in the three Roman trials is that Jesus was accused of sedition and was found completely innocent of all charges in all three of those Roman proceedings. Why is that important?

It means Jesus was executed solely because of what had happened in the Jewish trials. Now what happened in the Jewish trials? In the first one, the arraignment before Annas, He was just questioned about His disciples and about His teaching.

In the third, there was a mere formalization of what had already been decided in the early morning hours of that Friday morning. So, it is really during the second Jewish trial here in our text that we learned the real reason Jesus was executed. That's why I wanted to study it together.

We will learn that this was an illegal trial, an illegal trial that violated all standards of first century Jewish justice and biblical justice. But let's read it together, verse 53. “They led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.”

Annas by this time has already questioned Jesus, and now a quorum at least, but most likely most if not all of the Sanhedrin have assembled in the upper room of Caiaphas' adjacent home. Now it's important to get the lay of what that home would have looked like. Like many wealthy first century homes, the upper room where this proceeding would have taken place was apparently open to the courtyard below. That's important because it means there are other witnesses, and we're going to hear from them even this morning. 

Caiaphas is the one who leads the charge. Who is Caiaphas? Well, he served as high priest in Israel for a very long time, from AD 18 to AD 37. He was Annas' son-in-law. And in this second phase of the Jewish trial, both Annas and Caiaphas are present, along with the Sanhedrin.

Now, who were the Sanhedrin? The Council. This was Israel's highest court and the highest political authority among the Jews in the first century. It was made up of 71 men. It consisted of three groups of men. First of all, the chief priests. That group was the current high priest, along with all others who had served as high priests. 

Then there was the elders. The elders were the leading laymen of the nation, sort of the leading influential, if not wealthy, businessmen across the country who were part of leading the nation.

And the scribes, these were the professional teachers of the law. 

The high priest, in this case Caiaphas, was usually elected as president, presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, and that was true in this case. Now their meetings were normally held at the temple.

There was a special chamber there for the Sanhedrin to meet. This was the group that convened about 2 a.m. on that Friday morning, not on the temple grounds, but rather in the upper room of Caiaphas' home.

Mark provides another important detail about the setting of the second trial, verse 54, “Peter had followed Jesus at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest, and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at the fire.” Although all of the disciples, you remember, originally fled at the garden of Gethsemane, Peter and John eventually rallied their courage and followed Jesus to the home of the high priest.

According to John 18, John was known at the home of the high priest, and he was able to gain admittance. And then he secured entry as well for Peter. And they were able to be there to witness the initial arraignment before Annas.

During the second proceeding, before Caiaphas, John apparently went into the upper room, was there as the proceedings unfolded, and Peter stayed downstairs, outside in the courtyard. But regardless, in John 18, John makes the point that both he and Peter witnessed these proceedings, and specifically this proceeding. Why is that important? Because remember under Jewish law, under Old Testament law, there had to be at least two witnesses to confirm a fact is true. In this case, John, Jesus and Peter could all testify of what was said during both Jesus' arraignment with Annas and the second phase of the trial before Caiaphas. 

Peter, we're told in verse 54, was warming himself, sitting with the officers. This is probably the Jewish temple police. The Roman cohort is likely at this point returned to their quarters at the Fortress Antonia by the Temple Mount. And it's cold. At 2,500 feet above sea level, April nights in Jerusalem can be quite cold. If you've been there, you've experienced that. So, Peter was warming himself in front of a charcoal fire in the open courtyard of the high priest. He had likely come for several reasons. I think he was likely there to validate his boast just earlier that night: “Everyone else may desert you, but I won't.”

I think also we know in the restoration in John 21 that Peter truly loved Jesus Christ, and I think he was there out of his love for Christ But he was also there because he wanted to see how this was going to turn out. Matthew 26:58 says, “Peter was following Jesus at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and set down with the officers to see the outcome.”

He wanted to see what was going to happen. So that's the legal process that unfolded on that night. 

Now Mark provides a second key insight then here, and that is the real purpose of this trial, this second Jewish trial. What was its real purpose? Verse 55, “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death.”

William Hendrickson was right when he wrote this, “In the annals of Jewish prudence, no travesty of justice ever took place that was more shocking than this one.” It's clear from the very beginning, from the verse I just read to you, that this is a kangaroo court. Although the charge hasn't been decided, the verdict certainly has been.

It's a mock court set up in violation of established legal practice and tainted by corruption. If the same rules were in place in the first century that are recorded in the second century Mishnah, and many of them likely were, the trial of Jesus, this trial, was illegal, in clear violation of Jewish law in at least four ways. First of all, according to the Mishnah, no capital trial was allowed during the night.

Number two, the arrest of Jesus was the result of a bribe, and no indictment could be brought, no charge brought against someone who had been brought into that place by a bribe. Three, Jesus was repeatedly asked to incriminate himself. Like in our system, the accused did not have to speak in self-incrimination. But again and again, throughout what happens with Jesus, He is asked to speak and to incriminate Himself. And number four, in capital punishment cases, Jewish law didn't allow for the conviction and the sentence to be handed down on the same day, much as often happens in our own judicial system.

So, how did all of this transpire? What possible justification could there be for such an illegal process? Well, there was one massive legal loophole, and it's the one that Caiaphas chose. According to rabbinic law, all normal due process could be set aside if Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin determined that the trial, conviction and execution of Jesus was, “In the interest of the people and the Jewish religion.” It was the first century equivalent of being in the interest of national security or a clear and present danger. That's exactly what they had decided about Jesus. 

In fact, they had decided this long before. Early in Jesus' ministry, three years before that Friday night, the Pharisees had decided that Jesus had to go. If you go back to Mark chapter 3, verse 6, “The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Jesus, as to how they might destroy Him.” Throughout Jesus' ministry, the leaders of the nation had spies watching and listening for anything that might incriminate Him.

But a key event happened two months before that Friday night. Just two months earlier, in February of that year, Jesus had done something He never did. He staged a miracle for maximum effect. He waited after He heard of the death of His friend Lazarus for four days, and then He came. All of the friends had gathered. This wealthy family lived just two miles over the Mount of Olives from the city of Jerusalem.

Many of their friends, influential people from the city, had gathered in their home in Bethany. Jesus arrives, and with great fanfare, He demands that the stone be removed. He stands at the entrance of that tomb, and with a loud voice He shouts, “Lazarus, come forth!” And suddenly Lazarus rises from the dead. 

Now, why was that important? Well, up to this point, Jesus had primarily only angered the Pharisees because of his teaching. But this was a direct affront to the Sadducees, and the Sadducees were the high priestly families. Because Caiaphas and Annas belonged to the Sadducees, they absolutely denied the reality of a bodily resurrection. Two miles over the hill from their territory, Jesus stages a miracle in which He calls Lazarus from the dead.

And it's pretty hard to deny when Lazarus is walking around talking to people. And so, what happened? Caiaphas, right after that resurrection of Lazarus, led the Sanhedrin into a private session, and there they made the decision to kill Jesus for the good of the nation. It's recorded. It's recorded for us, probably Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus who eventually became disciples were on the Sanhedrin reported on it. And they tell us that here's what was said, John 11:50. This is Caiaphas two months before that Friday, “It is expedient that one man die for the people and that the whole nation not perish.” It's for our national security. It's a clear and present danger. He's got to die. 

Their motive, however, was not that. It was clear even to Pilate, Mark 15:10, says, “Pilate was aware that the chief priest had handed Him over because of envy.” Earlier on that week, the Passion Week, on Monday of the Passion Week, Jesus had cleansed the temple for a second time in His ministry, and He had denounced the leaders who had put that racket, that money making scheme on the temple mount. And guess who was responsible for it? Guess who was enriched by the money-making scheme at the top of the temple mount? It was the high priest. It was Annas. It was Caiaphas. 

He denounced them as publicly as thieves on Monday. On Tuesday, Jesus is gathered on the temple mount. This is like a 35-acre platform on which the temple stood in the middle. Hundreds of thousands would have gathered for Passover. Jesus is somewhere gathered on that platform, likely with tens of thousands of people listening. And in that environment, on Tuesday, in their territory, He calls them snakes and hypocrites. 

As a result of that, we read, go back to Mark, and look at verse 1 of chapter 14. “Now the Passover and unleavened bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him.”

That's the background for what happens on that Friday night. You see, in our text, in the early hours of Friday morning, in desperation, they are trying to find testimony, however unreliable,

that will allow them to convict Jesus of a capital crime. Of course, they would have preferred to have legitimate witnesses against Jesus. But in the end, it doesn't matter. This trial is a farce, a deliberate miscarriage of justice. Jesus was going to die. The decision had been made with or without due process. That's the real purpose behind this trial. 

That brings us then to a third insight, the total absence of valid evidence. The total absence of valid evidence, verse 55, “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.” In the Jewish judicial system, there was really no prosecutor. Instead, the witnesses served as a kind of lay prosecutor. The leaders in that environment kept trying to find witnesses, someone who would bring a charge, bring testimony against Jesus that was worthy of giving Him the death penalty, but unsuccessfully. 

Now, how did they seek this testimony? Well, we don't know for sure, but we know this, they weren't beyond paying for it. In Acts chapter 6, we're told in verse 11 there, that the Sanhedrin suborned perjury against Stephen. This is what we read: “They secretly induced men to say, ‘We have heard Him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.’” It's possible the same thing is happening here. Verse 56 says, “For many were giving false testimony against Him.” Think about that for a moment. When you read the Bible, read it with a bit of sanctified imagination. It's 2 a.m. on a Friday morning during the feast. And many were giving false testimony against Him. Talk about suspicious. They were able to call multiple witnesses against Jesus in the middle of the night. Clearly, they had been on standby, just waiting to hear of Jesus' arrest. 

Who were these accusers? They're people tied to the leaders. These are likely, in our terminology, interns and those looking to advance their careers, hangers-on, who were eager to oblige their leaders and to gain favor and probably favors in the future. They came forward with many accusations. But verse 56 says, “their testimony was not consistent.” This was a problem, because a foundational principle of Jewish law was that for someone to be put to death, there must be two witnesses. And if their testimony differed in even the most trivial detail, their entire testimony was inadmissible. 

And they couldn't find two witnesses who agreed. Even among those bringing false accusations. You know, when you read the scripture, there are some things that are tragically funny. This is one of them. I mean, really? You're going to get false witnesses and they can't work out their story beforehand where they can make this work? Verse 57, “Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him saying, ‘We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” Matthew tells us that there were two men who raised this accusation.

And by the way, this was a serious charge. Threatening the temple and its destruction could bring the death penalty. The prophet Jeremiah was almost executed in Jeremiah 26 when he simply predicted that it was going to be destroyed.

Their accusation here is based on a statement Jesus had made three years before when He drove the money changers out of the temple for the first time. And there when He did that, you remember the leaders asked Jesus, by what authority are you doing these things? And He responded in John 2 verse 19, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Speaking of the temple of His body. 

These witnesses proved to be false witnesses for at least three reasons. First of all, Jesus said, “If you destroy this temple, then I will raise it up.” The accusation said, He said He would destroy the temple. And that's the heart of the issue. He didn't say that.

Secondly, there's no record Jesus ever spoke of a temple made with hands and another made without hands. And thirdly, their accusation implies that Jesus intended to destroy the temple out of His disrespect for it in some way. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Jesus showed higher respect for the temple than these men did. He's the one who back in chapter 11, verse 17, said, “Is it not written, my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, but you have made it a robbers’ den.” But even these two men with their false witness were unable to get their story straight.

Now, why was that? Well, again, the Mishnah tells us that witnesses were required to be separately asked a series of seven questions about the circumstances of the alleged offense in order to validate their testimony. And so, these two false witnesses are questioned separately, and they can't get all seven answers right.

Mark reports verse 59, “Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent.” We're not told exactly how their testimonies disagreed, but this was serious. Remember, they are giving witness and testimony at a capital trial.

In such cases, lying as a witness in a death penalty case made you liable to the death penalty, because you were testifying to put someone to death. So, there were many false witnesses with bizarre allegations, but not one was found to be valid, even by those who had already decided that Jesus was guilty. What's going on here?

Listen, don't miss the point. The gospel writers want us to see that this was the entire case against Jesus Christ. The leaders had investigated Jesus for three years, looking for anything that would incriminate Him. But this was the best case that even His enemies could mount. This was their very best case against Jesus. The ridiculous misrepresentation of something that He had said three years earlier.

Now just think about that for a moment. What if an organization with unlimited resources tracked you down and followed you and watched your life for three years? And at the end of those three years, they found nothing.

That's our Savior. There were no legitimate witnesses against Him, and even the false witnesses couldn't come up with a convincing story. Understand this, the Jewish leaders couldn't even buy evidence against Jesus.

So why the animosity? Why the hatred? Listen, you need to understand this. This is always true. Proud sinners always feel it is their right to sit in judgment on Jesus Christ. That was true then, it's true now.

It happens all the time. Some in our generation openly deny His credibility. They openly reject His claims. They spew their vitriol and present their false witness against Jesus on social media and YouTube and in the classrooms across our country. Tragically, many of those enemies of the gospel grew up in Christian homes. They have now rejected Christ, perhaps even becoming, theologically, what are called apostates. And now they spend their lives trying to persuade others to deconstruct their faith.

Some, however, never openly declare themselves to be an enemy of Jesus. Their approach is just as deadly but more subtle. They just ignore Jesus and live as if Jesus of Nazareth doesn't really matter at all. They just never interact, never think about Him. Just assume He is an irrelevant piece of history. 

Or, and this is really common, I've run into this several times, they will accuse Jesus and the Bible of not being clear enough to answer their questions about Christianity. Or, they'll accuse Jesus of not being persuasive enough to overcome their doubts. Listen, let's be clear. This is not about the believability of Jesus. This is because they will not have Jesus to rule over them. 

Listen, friend, if like the religious leaders at Jesus' trial, you somehow think it's your right to sit in judgment on Jesus Christ, to make your little petty decision about whether He is or is not who He claimed, you need to understand this. He is not on trial. You are. That was the reality then. It's the reality now.

The point that Mark wants us to understand is that the absolute spotless character of Jesus Christ was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt at His trial. And why is this so important? Why is it important? Why does this matter? Why is all of this recorded for us? Listen, it goes to the heart of the gospel. If this didn't happen, you are not saved. Because it proves Jesus' credentials to die for His people. By proving that Jesus was innocent, not only before God, but also in every human court, God was establishing Jesus' credentials to die in the place of sinners. For Jesus to die for our sins, He had to have no sins that deserve death. And that was exactly the reality.

You know, this point is made throughout the New Testament. But I love the fact that this very point is made beautifully and clearly in a passage that was written 700 years before that Friday night. Think about that. If something about an event today had been written in the 1300’s, that's the reality. Turn back with me to Isaiah 53. The prophet Isaiah describes the suffering servant, the suffering Messiah, the reality that Messiah would come, be rejected and suffer. Notice verse 7, “He was oppressed.” See if anything sounds familiar to you in this language from our text. 

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. By oppression and judgment, He was taken away. And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living, not for His own transgression, but for the transgression of My people to whom the stroke was due? 

There's his saving purpose. Verse 9, “His grave was assigned with wicked men.” Those are the terrorists He was nailed to the cross with. He was supposed to have His body thrown on the garbage dump of Jerusalem along with theirs.

Yet God wouldn't let that happen. “He was with a rich man in His death.” He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, ironically one of the members of the Council, one of the members of the Sanhedrin who came to believe in Jesus. Why? Why did God make this happen? “Because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.” He was characterized by total moral purity.

Listen, you need to understand that the cross was the greatest miscarriage of human justice in history. But at the same time, the cross was the greatest demonstration of perfect justice. Because on the cross, God's justice was fully satisfied on behalf of every sin, of every sinner who will ever believe.

If you're still in Isaiah, look at verse 10. But in contrast to the human reasons, wrong human reasons, He was put to death. “But Yahweh was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief.

If He [that is the Messiah] would render Himself as a guilt offering.” There's the reason for His death. He is the perfect fulfillment of all of those sacrifices. That's why Paul can call Him in the Corinthian letter, “Christ our Passover.”

He's our Passover lamb. That's why He died at 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon at the time the Passover lambs were killed, because He's our Passover lamb. He's the perfect fulfillment of that.

He rendered Himself as a guilt offering. 

Now watch the next phrase: “He will see His offspring.” That is those who follow Him, those who believe in Him, His children in a manner of speaking. What does that imply? Resurrection. You can't see your offspring unless you survive. And “He will prolong His days.” There's an explicit comment on the resurrection. “And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.”

Verse 11, “As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied.” Jesus is satisfied with His work, and by our knowledge of Him, the Righteous One, by our knowledge and belief in Him, He will justify the many. He will declare right before God the many.

How does it happen? “As He will bear their iniquities.” Listen, if you're here this morning and you don't know God your Creator, if you still bear the guilt of your sins, if you want to be right with God, if you want your sins forgiven, you must repent of that sin, and you must believe in the One and His work that's described here.

You must believe in the One who was perfectly innocent and righteous, but who died bearing the iniquities of everyone who would ever believe in Him so that God could be just and still forgive your sins. You must believe in Him. You must come to Him as Savior and Lord. And my prayer is you'll do that even today. 

But most of us here are believers. What should be our response during this Passion Week to what we're seeing unfold in our passage and here in Isaiah 53? There's so many, but let me give you two. My prayer is these will frame your response this Passion Week before us. Number one, give the sacrifice of our praise to God. The sacrifice of our praise to God. Hebrews 13:15. After describing the work of Jesus Christ, it says this, “through Jesus then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.”

Listen, Christian, don't let this be an ordinary week for you. If you're a follower of Jesus, it isn't an ordinary week. Don't pretend it is. This is the week. This is the anniversary when He laid down His life to purchase your forgiveness, when He, the just one, died for the unjust. Let this be a week above every week of praise to God. The sacrifice of praise to God because of what Jesus has done. Let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God. That is the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

There's a second response that I think this passage and these truths call on us to exhibit, and that is the sacrifice of our lives to Christ. The sacrifice of our lives to Christ. Listen to how Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 5:15. Christ died for all, that is for all His people. “He died for all so that they who live,”—that's us, we still live. He died, we live—“so that they who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him.”

“So that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” Christian, let me ask you honestly this morning, is that how you think about your life? That you really aren't your own? That you've been bought with a price? That your life means now that you should no longer live for yourself but for Him who died and rose again on your behalf?

Can I just plead with you this morning and this week before us? Let it be a renewal. Because if you're a Christian, you've already made this commitment. But let it be a renewal to say, “Lord, my life is Yours. Here I am. Do what you want with me. Help me to glorify You with every day I have.” Again, listen to Paul. “He died so that they who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” Let's pray together.

Father, thank You for our time together. We are amazed at Your grace that You would send Your only begotten Son into the world to live and to die on our behalf. And Lord Jesus, we are amazed at Your grace that You would leave the glories and joys of heaven to come into this world of sin, to become like us in full and complete humanity, except for sin, to live among us, and then You, the only perfect spotless One, to die bearing not Your sin, but the sins of Your people to whom the transgression, to whom the stroke for the transgression was due.

Lord, we thank You and praise You. Help us our hearts to be filled with praise, and Lord, hear our lives. I pray for those who may be here this morning who don't know You. Lord, may You use the simple gospel they've heard even from Isaiah 53 to call them to Yourself even now. We pray in Jesus' name, Amen.