Clean Transcript

Condemning Or Damning Christ

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

• Mark chapter 14. We're going to read verses 55 through 64. The title of the message is "Condemning or Damning Christ." You will understand momentarily. So Mark 14 verse 55: "And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain to bear false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another temple made without hands. But neither did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming into the clouds of heaven."

  #1 | 0:13 to 1:27 | cleaned

• "Then the high priest rent his clothes and said, What need we of any further witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy, what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." Condemnation is a very powerful word. We do not understand its impact unless we understand it theologically. We normally understand condemnation in the legal sense. For instance, a criminal is found guilty. That just simply means that he is condemned, and then he is sentenced. At times the condemnation may be just or may be unjust, and the sentence itself could either be just or unjust. Man is not perfect in this life, and therefore most judgments are not completely just because of our imperfections. However, innocent men have been condemned and wicked men have been declared innocent.

  #2 | 1:28 to 2:27 | cleaned

• Unjust and unbiblical sentences have also been meted out to individuals that certainly do not deserve them. Now the theological implications of this word condemnation can easily be seen by looking at the word in the Greek text. The Greek word is katakrino, and it is translated in our Bibles "condemned" 17 times and "damn" 2 times. Thus the word actually means to condemn, to damn, to give judgment against, and to judge someone worthy of punishment. So the word is used in various ways throughout the Bible. First of all, it is used in reference to what Adam did to his posterity. When Adam sinned, we were condemned in Adam. For instance, in Romans 5 and verse 16, the Bible says, "And not as it was by one that sinned, so was the gift. For the judgment was by one to condemnation." So Adam's judgment was of one man to condemnation. Then you get to Romans 5 and verse 18: "Therefore as the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation."

  #3 | 2:27 to 3:48 | cleaned

• And then he goes on to make a comparison of Jesus Christ. But notice if you would, he said, "judgment came upon all to condemnation." All men are now in a state of condemnation, that is all unsaved men. In fact, we were born under condemnation. That's why the Bible says in Romans 5 and verse 12, "as by one man sin entered in the world, and death by sin. And so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned." So the very fact that men die demonstrates that we are under the condemnation of God and the curse of sin as well.

  #4 | 3:48 to 4:27 | cleaned

• If you would hold Mark 14 but turn back in your Bibles, or turn over I should say, to the book of John chapter 3. John chapter 3. And notice, if you would, please, verses 18 and 19. John 3, verses 18 and 19. Here's the same word. "For God so loved the world," verse 16, everyone knows this one, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Verse 17, for God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but the world through him might be saved. Now watch, he that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already. Because he had not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Verse 19, and this is the condemnation. This is the damnation. This is a judgment that light is coming to the world and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." So the Bible teaches that man by nature is already condemned, and the demonstration of that is he loves darkness rather than light. I could also say that he loves error rather

  #5 | 4:28 to 5:48 | cleaned

• than truth. That is for sure. Moreover, the Old Covenant, the Old Testament, with its ceremonial laws and sacrifices, is specifically called a ministry of condemnation. 2 Corinthians 3 and verse 9 the Bible said, "for if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." Now although the Old Covenant was a ministry of condemnation, yet it was glorious. And the Apostle Paul is saying that the ministry of righteousness is far more glorious than that of condemnation. So you are going to ask, why was the Old Covenant referred to then as a ministry of condemnation?

  #6 | 5:48 to 6:41 | cleaned

• So, if you will look in your Bibles to Hebrews chapter 10, I'll give you the answer. Hebrews chapter 10, and let's begin reading there with verse 1. Hebrews 10 and verse 1. Here is why the Old Covenant is regarded as a ministry of condemnation. "For the law," that is especially the ceremonial law, "having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers therein too perfect." So obviously, the law, the ceremonial law, was a shadow, it was not the reality. And he says, all of those sacrifices could never make anyone perfect. Watch verse 2. "If it had of, for then would they not have ceased to be offered, because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices," that is the Old Covenant, "there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."

  #7 | 6:41 to 7:54 | cleaned

• "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." So obviously in this passage we can see how the Old Covenant was a ministry of condemnation because it could not make anyone perfect. And if you look down verse 5 through 8 particularly, now we are talking about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So Jesus Christ is the only perfect sacrifice. So condemnation then is the passing of judgment. It is a condemnation or a damnation.

  #8 | 7:55 to 8:30 | cleaned

• Now let me show you how the word is used and translated in several scriptures. So if you will turn back in your Bibles to the book of Matthew chapter 23 and look at verse 14. Matthew 23 verse 14. You'll see this several times, but it's translated exactly the same way. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayer. Therefore you shall receive the greater damnation," or condemnation. But here it's translated as damnation. If you look in Mark 12 and verse 40, Mark 12, and verse 40. Again he says it like this, "which devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers, these shall receive greater damnation," or greater condemnation. Look in Luke 20 and verse 47. So three times he uses the word damnation. Luke chapter 20 and verse 47 again he says this, "which devour widows' houses and for show make long prayers the same shall receive the greater damnation."

  #9 | 8:31 to 10:06 | cleaned

• Now let me just mention something. There are many individuals that take God's name in vain and attach the word "damn" to God's name. When they do so, they are asking God to judge, to condemn, and to damn the individual at which they are angry.

  #10 | 10:07 to 10:34 | cleaned

• Now, they do not realize their sin, not only in taking the name of the Lord in vain, and profaning the name of the Lord, they certainly probably do not recognize the implications of their request. For instance, if merely calling someone a fool puts us in danger of hellfire, what is the verdict if we ask God particularly just to damn someone because we're angry with them? Let me show you. Look in your Bibles to Matthew 5 and verse 22. Matthew 5 and verse 22. Look what our Lord says. In fact, let's read verse 21. He said, "You've heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment, but I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. But whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." So when someone just merely takes God's name in vain and then asks God to damn someone just simply because they're angry and upset with them, they are really asking for serious trouble in their lives and they do not realize the implication of their request.

  #11 | 10:36 to 12:20 | cleaned

• Now, you understand that condemnation may either be just or unjust. And when we talk about the condemnation of Jesus Christ, we certainly understand that it is unjust, and was unjust, and that our Lord was unjustly condemned. Do you remember that even the repentant thief recognized the innocence of Jesus Christ? Those two that were crucified with Him in Luke 23, one said, "If thou be the Son of God, come off the cross and get us off as well." The repentant thief rebuked him saying, "Dost thou not fear God?

  #12 | 12:21 to 13:08 | cleaned

• Seeing that we are in the same condemnation, and we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our sins, but this man hath done nothing amiss." So, even one of the thieves recognized the innocence of Jesus Christ. If you would turn in your Bibles to Acts chapter 2. Peter is preaching on the day of Pentecost and he makes an astounding statement, watch carefully. Acts 2 beginning there verse 22 he says, "Hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you as you yourselves also know, him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain, whom God

  #13 | 13:09 to 14:17 | cleaned

• hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, it was not possible that he should be holding of it." Now, notice if you would in verse 22 he talks about Jesus Christ, "a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs." They could not deny His miracles. But notice in verse 23, "Him being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

  #14 | 14:17 to 14:49 | cleaned

• Now, let me put these two things in perspective for you. Did not God the Father ordain everything concerning the death of Jesus Christ? And the answer is yes. Nothing was done to Jesus Christ except that which God ordained in eternity past. But, I want you to note, Peter said, "you have taken and by wicked hands have crucified." In other words, the chief priests, the scribes, the Pharisees, these individuals were not interested in glorifying God. They were not interested in honoring God.

  #15 | 14:50 to 15:32 | cleaned

• They were not trying to fulfill prophecy. They did what they did to Jesus Christ because they hated Him and they despised Him. And thus their rebellion and their wickedness is demonstrated here. That's why I said, "you have taken by wicked hands and have crucified Him." So, their actions were absolutely, totally wicked and unbiblical. Now, there are a number of illegalities concerning the trial of Jesus Christ. I'm going to mention just a few. I'm not going to delve into the illegalities of His trial.

  #16 | 15:32 to 16:11 | cleaned

• The truth of the matter is there could be an entire series of sermons on this one particular subject, but that is not the point of this message. I want you to look back at Mark chapter 14 and verse 53. I'm trying to set the stage so we can look at this passage. Look at Mark 14 and verse 53. "They led Jesus away to the high priest, and with him with the high priest were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes." Now, you have to remember that the Sadducees controlled the temple. Let me go a little further. Not only controlled the temple, there was a clique in the ruling family. I could say the Clinton Foundation or the Democratic National Party and you can understand what I'm talking about.

  #17 | 16:12 to 17:32 | cleaned

• But let me show you from Scripture. I want you to look in the book of Acts chapter 4 just to show you that there is a ruling clique, a corrupt clique in the Sanhedrin. In Acts chapter 4, look at verses 5 and 6. "And it came to pass on the morrow that the rulers and elders and scribes," now watch, "and Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest were gathered together at Jerusalem." So you basically got one family now that is controlling the temple and basically controlling the Sanhedrin. Now, the Sadducees control the temple. The Pharisees control the general populace. And usually the Pharisees and the Sadducees were at odds with each other. They were fighting each other. And the reason they were fighting each other is very simple. The Pharisees claimed to be the Bible believers or the fundamentalists of their day.

  #18 | 17:33 to 18:53 | cleaned

• At least they believed in their interpretation of the law. The Sadducees were extremely liberal. They did not believe in the Spirit, nor did they believe in the resurrection from the dead. But the Pharisees confessed both. You remember the Apostle Paul when he saw the councils made up of Pharisees and Sadducees, he said that he was a Pharisee and raised a Pharisee for the hope of Israel, and he divided the council because normally they were in each other's throats. However, Jesus Christ confounded both the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

  #19 | 18:54 to 19:38 | cleaned

• And now what they've done, they've come together to condemn Him and to execute Him. Let me show you. I want you to turn to Matthew chapter 22. Hang in there with me. Look in Matthew chapter 22 and verse 34. Matthew 22, verse 34. "But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together." Wow! They were enemies but they came together against Christ. So look in Mark 14 and verse 1.

  #20 | 19:39 to 20:23 | cleaned

• That's the passage that we are in. Mark 14 and verse 1. The Bible says, "And after two days was the feast of the Passover and of unleavened bread, and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft and put him to death." So now they are trying and planning to capture Christ and execute him. Look in verse 55, Mark 14, verse 55, "the chief priests" plural "and all the council sought for witnesses against Jesus to put him to death and found none." Now one last thought on this. Turn to John 11. John 11 and let's begin reading there with verse 47. To show you how they've come together to destroy Christ. John 11 verse 47: "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council," so here you've got the rulers of the temple are the ones who had the people in their hand, "then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council and said, What do we? For this man

  #21 | 20:23 to 21:53 | cleaned

• doeth many miracles." In other words, we can't deny what is happening. Now watch verse 48, "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation. And one of them named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, You know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

  #22 | 21:53 to 22:40 | cleaned

• Now watch, "then from that day forth they took counsel together," the Pharisees and the Sadducees, "to put him to death." Now, when Caiaphas said to the council, understand. It's easier for one man to die than the nation. We can execute one man and be rid of our problem. If we let him thus alone, the Romans are going to come and take away both our place, our position, our power, and our nation. Now, Caiaphas did not know what he was saying. When I said that he prophesied that Jesus should die not only for those people but for his other people everywhere else, he did not understand what he was saying. All he was thinking about was getting rid of Jesus Christ and executing Him. But note if you would please, after this they determine they're going to put him to death.

  #23 | 22:40 to 23:56 | cleaned

• Now, I want you to go back to Mark 14. Mark 14, look at verse 55. I want you to consider the implication of these words. "And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death and found none." I want to point something out just momentarily. But notice if you would, they are seeking for witnesses so they can put Jesus Christ to death. If you will look, Mark 14 we are coming right back. If you will look in Matthew 26 at verse 59, same thing, Matthew 26 verse 59, "Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death." Now here's what I want to point out.

  #24 | 23:57 to 25:04 | cleaned

• Everything about this trial was already predetermined and prejudged. First of all, there was no complaint filed against Jesus Christ. There was no one who could claim personal harm or injury. He had harmed no one. How do you proceed in a legal case against someone without an official complaint? I mean, the court does not just simply go up and down the street and snatch somebody off the street and say, "We're going to put you on trial." No, there has to be a complaint.

  #25 | 25:07 to 25:54 | cleaned

• Secondly, if you notice this, the judges initiated the action. And without the judges, there would not have been a case. The judges initiated the action. That's like if a circuit court judge here said, "Well, I'm kind of bored. We don't have anything else to do around here. Go arrest Gary and bring him in here and we'll think of something to charge him with." Here the judges are seeking witnesses.

  #26 | 25:54 to 26:33 | cleaned

• Thirdly, I want you to note, they intended to condemn Christ. They intended to execute Jesus Christ. They were not interested in justice. They simply wanted Jesus Christ condemned. And in desiring Him condemned, they were violating one of their own canons, one of their own principles. Here it is. In pecuniary causes, that is in causes relating to money, they begin either with absolution or condemnation. But in capital causes they begin for absolution and do not begin with condemnation.

  #27 | 26:33 to 27:17 | cleaned

• It's just like our adage, a man is innocent until proven guilty. So this court then is beginning with condemnation contrary to their own canon. Because when it comes to the death penalty, they are to begin with absolution. So, they wanted or they should have been looking for evidence to acquit Jesus Christ. But they were not interested in acquitting Him. They were looking for information and witnesses to condemn Him to death.

  #28 | 27:17 to 27:54 | cleaned

• Now, listen if you would as a quote from John Gill. He said, and I quote, "They first take him up and then seek for witnesses against him, being determined right or wrong to put him to death, if possible, and false witnesses too, even those whose business it was to examine and detect false witnesses, and to inflict the same punishment upon them which they by their false testimony intended to have brought on another."

  #29 | 27:55 to 28:30 | cleaned

• Now let me just stop there. Why does Gill say that the judges had a responsibility to examine and detect false witnesses? And the answer is because of Deuteronomy chapter 19 verses 18 and 19. Because if a man bare false witness against a brother, the judges then were to examine him. The judges were then, if he was found guilty, they were to put the same judgment upon the man who bore false witness as he thought to have done to his brother. So it was their responsibility to examine and detect false witnesses. But let me go on. He said that besides, it was in the night, and when it was forbidden by their canons to begin the capital causes or to receive and admit witnesses. Now, wait a minute. The trial then began at night. It

  #30 | 28:30 to 29:30 | cleaned

• was a violation of their own canon. He goes on to say this, "Indeed the Syriac and Persic versions read only witnesses or witness and leave out the word false. Perhaps imagining that men could never be so wicked to seek out for false witnesses. But this need not be wondered at, when all men were bent upon the death of Christ at any rate, and were aware that nothing true could be objected to him that would legally take away his life."

  #31 | 29:30 to 30:00 | cleaned

• And besides, their manner of procedure and judgment against the false prophet, a deceiver, and one that enticed to idolatry, and such in one they would have Jesus to be, was quite different from what they with other persons. Their canon runs. In other words, here is where they violated their own canon. "The judgment of a deceiver is not as the rest of capital judgments." Listen carefully. "His witnesses are hid and he has no need or ought not to have any premonition or warning as the rest of those that are put to death. And if he goes out of the Sanhedrin acquitted, and one says, I can prove the charge against him, they turn him back. But if he goes out condemned and one says, I can prove him innocent, they do not return him."

  #32 | 30:00 to 30:52 | cleaned

• So obviously, everything about this trial was unjust. The judges themselves were unjust. Everything is set to purposefully, deliberately condemn Jesus Christ. Now I want us to look in Mark 14 and let's try to analyze this passage. Mark 14 look in verse 56. "For many bear false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain mere false witnesses against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together." Now, the obvious implication of these verses is the false witnesses did not agree, could not agree, and obviously they were false witnesses. Here is the interesting thing, the very fact that these individuals were bearing false witness did not upset the priests, the Pharisees, or the council. They could care less. What upset them was this. There was no witness that testified against him that could demonstrate that he merited the death penalty. They wanted him dead.

  #33 | 30:54 to 32:57 | cleaned

• They planned to execute him. But these witnesses are testifying over trivial and mundane things. "Well, I heard him say he's going to destroy this temple in three days, build it again without hands." Why would you have the death penalty there?

  #34 | 32:58 to 33:22 | cleaned

• Now, here's what John Gill says. Listen carefully. "Though this is not much the sense of the passage here, it was not the falsehood of their testimony, which this council was unconcerned about, or the contradiction that was in it, which does not appear, but their testimonies were not equal or answerable to the wishes of the council. They were not sufficient to prove a capital crime upon him in order to put him to death, which is what they wanted."

  #35 | 33:23 to 33:53 | cleaned

• "They only respected some light and trivial matters, and did not amount to a charge of blasphemy or sedition." Wow. So, they wanted Him dead, obviously.

  #36 | 33:54 to 34:08 | cleaned

• Now, look at verse 60, "And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?" Look in verse 61, "but he held his peace." Now when the high priest stood up and asked, "Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?" This was a very provocative question and one designed to indicate and imply the guilt of Jesus Christ. And so, here's what he's saying. "Answerest thou nothing?" Watch. "Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?"

  #37 | 34:09 to 35:03 | cleaned

• In other words, you've got so many witnesses that are witnessing and testifying against you. There must be something wrong. You've done something wrong. Look at all the multitude you've got. You are hiding something. You have got to be guilty. What they wanted Christ to do was to confess and condemn himself. But he did not fall into that trap. The Bible says, "but he held his peace and answered nothing." He did not speak. Now.

  #38 | 35:03 to 35:47 | cleaned

• The high priest is extremely frustrated. He wants to put Jesus Christ to death, but so far there's been no reason. So if you look in verse 61 the Bible says, "but he held his peace and answered nothing," that is to all of those false witnesses. "Again the high priest asked him and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Now the Blessed One was a common name for the one true and the living God. And God is so called the Blessed One because He is everlastingly blessed in and of Himself, and He should be blessed and praised continually of men and angels. In fact, Zacharias began his canticle in Luke 1 and verse 68 with these words, "Blessed is the Lord God." So God is the Blessed One.

  #39 | 35:49 to 36:54 | cleaned

• Now, let me ask you a question. In verse 61, "Again the high priest asked him and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power coming in the clouds of heaven." Now, wait a minute. Jesus Christ had been standing silent. Now the high priest asked him a question and he answers. So why did Jesus Christ answer here when he did not answer previously? Well, look in your Bibles. First of all, the Matthew chapter 26 in verse 63. Matthew 26. Here's a little fuller account of Matthew 26 verse 63. "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." "I adjure thee by the living God." Wow. Here is what the high priest is doing. He is putting Jesus Christ under a solemn oath. And he says, "You must answer this."

  #40 | 36:54 to 38:41 | cleaned

• "Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?" Now, look in your Bibles to the book of Leviticus chapter 5 and verse 1. Leviticus 5 and verse 1. Here is the reason Jesus Christ answered. Leviticus 5 and verse 1. Notice, "And if a soul sin and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity." So, Jesus Christ was indeed a witness to the fact that He was the Messiah, the Son of God.

  #41 | 38:42 to 39:40 | cleaned

• And so He has to answer. Jesus Christ could testify to the fact that yes, He is the Messiah, He is the Son of God. Listen to what Calvin said, listen carefully. "Christ the Son of God." From the words of Caiaphas we may infer that it was at this time, or that time, it was common among the Jews to bestow on the Messiah the title, Son of God. And this form of interrogation could not have originated any other way than from the ordinary custom. And indeed they had learned from the predictions of Scripture that it was not less the Son of God than the Son of David. It appears too that Caiaphas employed this epithet with a view of either terrifying Christ or of exciting a prejudice against Him, as if he had said, "See where you are going with this, for you cannot call yourself Christ the Messiah without claiming at the same time to be the Son of God. Scripture honors him."

  #42 | 39:41 to 40:50 | cleaned

• "Such is also the reason for using the word blessed, which Mark gives instead of God, for this pretended reverence for God was intended to bring a heavier charge against Christ than that of just simply profaning the holy name of God." Wow! So the High Priest is saying if you claim to be the Messiah, the Anointed One, then you also have to claim to be the son of David, the son of Abraham, the son of God. So watch it. Go back to Mark 14. Look at verse 61. "Again, the high priest asked him and said to him, Art thou the Christ, the son of the blessed? Jesus said, I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of glory."

  #43 | 40:51 to 41:51 | cleaned

• I love what our Lord said. "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Jesus said, I am." So here's what our Lord said. "You said it. You got it right. You hit the nail on the head this time. You were correct. I am the Son of God." And he gives two proofs. He said, "and you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power," that is on the right hand of God. The very fact that Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God demonstrates He is not only the Messiah but the Son of God. And then the second one is you shall see Him coming in the clouds of Heaven.

  #44 | 41:51 to 42:41 | cleaned

• In other words, He is either going to be coming in judgment in 70 AD or coming in the last judgment. But He is going to be coming, that is for sure.

  #45 | 42:41 to 42:54 | cleaned

• Now notice verses 63 and 64. "Then the high priest rent his clothes and said, What need we any further witnesses? You've heard the blasphemy, what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." Now the high priest rent his clothes and said, "What need we have further witnesses? You've heard the blasphemy." And then he asked this question, "what think ye?" Now, on the surface, you would say, well, that's a fairly innocent question because the high priest is asking the council what they think. Well, that may be true. However, it was a loaded question. Because the high priest said, "You have heard the blasphemy. What think ye?" As president of the council, he was to vote last, but now he's voted first. And he said, in essence, "He's a blasphemer. What do you think?" And then they all condemned him guilty of death. I find it interesting the Bible says in verse 63, "then the high priest rent his clothes and said, What need we have any further witnesses?"

  #46 | 42:55 to 44:37 | cleaned

• The rending of his robe and the rending of his clothes indicates the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant because now the priesthood is going to be gone and have the beginning of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. So now they have charged Him with blasphemy. By the way, when Jesus Christ would say that God was His Father, they understood that He was claiming to be God.

  #47 | 44:38 to 45:10 | cleaned

• For instance, look in John 5 and verse 18. John 5, in fact let's read verse 17 and 18. John 5 verse 17, "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the Lord to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath," that is their interpretation of it, "but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Wow!

  #48 | 45:11 to 45:44 | cleaned

• So they understood the implication. So when the high priest asked him, "Art thou the Christ and son of the blessed?" Jesus Christ said, "I am." Ah, now they said, "You're a blasphemer because you're claiming to be God." Now I want you to look in Leviticus 24 and verse 16. Leviticus 24 and verse 16. In this passage we read about the penalty for blasphemy. Leviticus chapter 24 and verse 16.

  #49 | 45:45 to 46:38 | cleaned

• "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death. And all the congregation shall certainly stone him, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." So blasphemy did indeed carry the death penalty, that is for sure.

  #50 | 46:38 to 46:58 | cleaned

• Now, let me ask you this question. Why did the Council condemn Jesus Christ? They charged Him with blasphemy. Because he claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Look in your Bibles to Luke 23. Here's an interesting thing. When they got Jesus Christ before Pilate, the charges changed. Isn't that amazing? The charges changed. Luke 23 verse 1, "And the whole multitude of them arose and led him unto Pilate.

  #51 | 46:58 to 47:56 | cleaned

• And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ the King." What? Where is the charge of blasphemy? They knew that Pilate would not be interested in their charge of blasphemy. So now they have to change the charge in order to get the Romans to condemn him. Do you remember what they told Pilate in John chapter 19? They said, "If you let this man go then you are not Caesar's friend." Wow!

  #52 | 47:56 to 48:33 | cleaned

• Now, here is what they did in Mark 14. They condemned Christ. They damned Christ. Why? And the answer is because they believed that Jesus Christ was an imposter, a charlatan, a deceiver, a liar, and a blasphemer. That simple. Here is the point of this entire message. Unless individuals repent of their sins and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and bow to Him and submit to Him and acknowledge Him as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior, the Lord of Glory, the Great I Am, God incarnate, that is, God in the flesh, unless you do that, you're agreeing with the Sanhedrin that He's a blasphemer and a liar and a charlatan and a deceiver. You follow that?

  #53 | 48:34 to 50:05 | cleaned

• Stop and think about the implications of this charge. That means we either condemn the wickedness and rebellion of the Sanhedrin or we condemn and damn Jesus Christ. We're saying that they're right and Christ was wrong. And unless we condemn ourselves and say, "Yes, we're sinful and wicked and rebellious, we need to repent," we're saying that they are right and we're damning Christ, we're condemning Him. One more, think about this. As Christians, when we know and understand the principles of God's Word and the truths of God's Word, then

  #54 | 50:08 to 51:03 | cleaned

• we knowingly and willingly violate them. What are we saying in practicality? That Jesus Christ is not God. That He does not have the right to tell us how to live and how to act and what to do and what not to do. In other words, we would be saying with the Sanhedrin that He is a deceiver, a charlatan, and a blasphemer. We will either agree with the Sanhedrin or we will agree with Jesus Christ. There is no neutrality. We either bow to Him or bow to the Sanhedrin. We either condemn the Sanhedrin or we condemn Christ. We either condemn ourselves or we condemn Christ. To me it's an absolutely astounding thought that multitudes today are doing exactly what the Sanhedrin did over 2,000 years ago. They're condemning Jesus Christ and saying He's not God. Don't have to bow to him.

  #55 | 51:03 to 52:34 | cleaned

• I do not have to obey him. I do not have to bring my life into conformity to his word. But here's the truth: Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus Christ is God. He's King of Kings and Lord of Lords and God of gods, and we had better bow to him and acknowledge who he is and serve him. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask for Your grace and Your mercy. Help us, dear Lord, not to sin against Thee, not to grieve Thee, and certainly not to condemn Christ. Help us to love Thee and live for Thee. In the name of Jesus Christ, we ask and pray. Amen.

  #56 | 52:34 to 53:22 | cleaned

• so so

  #57 | 53:40 to 53:40 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-04T15:33:56Z