Matthew 26

⁵⁷ Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. ⁵⁸ And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end. ⁵⁹ Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, ⁶⁰ but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward ⁶¹ and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’” ⁶² And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” ⁶³ But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” ⁶⁴ Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” ⁶⁵ Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. ⁶⁶ What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” ⁶⁷ Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, ⁶⁸ saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?” 

In 1914 and 1915, Franz Kafka, the enigmatic writer from Austria-Hungary, wrote his novel, The Trial. He did not intend for it to be published and he left instructions that all of his works were to be destroyed. Fortunately his friends did not follow these instructions. Kafka died in 1924 and The Trial was published by his friend Max Brod the next year.

The Trial has come to mind a few times over the last few weeks. In the story, a young bank employee man named Josef K. wakes up to find two shadowy agents in his room who inform him that he is being charged with a crime and will stand trial. He demands to know what for but they will not say. He is led to a higher official who informs him that he is, in fact, to stand trial. Like the first two agents, this official will not tell Josef what he is being charged with, what agency they are with, what court they represent, or any details about the trial. In fact, they tell him to return to work at the bank and carry on with his life like normal though he is to keep in mind that he has been charged and will stand trial for the undisclosed crime.

The rest of the story unfolds like some weird episode of “The Twilight Zone” or like some kind of nightmare. Josef is slowly driven to despair and finally resignation through his efforts to find out what he has been charged with, when his trial is to be, who exactly this court is, and how he is to receive a fair and just trial and why he cannot know these things. Every turn he makes in trying to discover more about this leads him into increasingly absurd and frustrating discoveries that really are not discoveries at all. The story ends with two court officials showing up at Josef’s home, taking him outside of the city, and killing him.

It is a fascinating and intriguing tale. People discuss what Kafka was trying to say through this story. The exact meaning will never be known, but this much seems clear: Kafka was highlighting the absurdity that seems to reside in modern society and sometimes, it seems, in life itself.

As I said, I have thought of Kafka’s Trial a good bit lately as we have been considering the crucifixion with Jesus. Last week we saw the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Now we turn to the initial steps of His trial.

There are differences, of course, in the account of Jesus’ trial and in Kafka’s story. Jesus knew exactly who it was who had arrested Him and He also knew why he was being tried and then why, ultimately, He was going to be executed. But there is also a very basic similarity: namely the ever-increasing sense of the absurd that surrounds the trial of Jesus coupled with a profound sense of injustice. In the providence of God, this was necessary for Jesus to reach the cross. However, from a human perspective, each unfolding event in this trial is more absurd, unjust, nightmarish, and obscene than the one before.

Just imagine the insanity of it. In the trial of Jesus:

• the guilty accuse, try, and then kill the innocent.
• the blasphemous accuse the only one who is righteous of blasphemy.
• those caught in a lie accuse the truth of telling lies.
• those who are ignorant claim to know more than the one who is omniscient.
• those who could not see God rebuke God in the name of God.

There is indeed something Kafkaesque about the trial of Jesus, something surreal. Yet Jesus submits Himself to this for us and for our salvation. The trial of Jesus reveals certain things about us and about Jesus. I would like to approach this by way of a thesis statement: Human beings tend to misunderstand the truth when they first hear it and to hate the truth when they finally understand it. The trial of Jesus demonstrates this. But the truth is the truth regardless of our reaction to it, and the truth is named Jesus.

Human beings tend to misunderstand the truth when they first hear it and to hate the truth when they finally understand it.

First, human beings tend to misunderstand the truth when they see it.

⁵⁷ Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. ⁵⁸ And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end. ⁵⁹ Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, ⁶⁰ but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward ⁶¹ and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”

In an effort to find grounds rid themselves of Jesus, His accusers were finally forced to take a statement of His that they simply did not understand and use it against Jesus: “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’” Caiaphas acted with outrage and demanded a response. Jesus remained silent.

Face to face with the truth, they could not understand it.

The episode Jesus’ accusers referenced is found in John 2.

¹⁹ Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ²⁰ The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” ²¹ But he was speaking about the temple of his body. ²² When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

You will notice, first, that the words of Jesus are misquoted by His accusers. What Jesus had said was, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” However, His accusers quoted Him as saying, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.” Jesus had said that if they destroyed the temple He would build it back, not that He would destroy the temple.

Most tragic of all, they had completely misunderstood the meaning of Jesus’ saying. What they saw as talk of insurrection was really talk of resurrection. Jesus, John informs us, was not talking about the building, He was talking about His coming death and resurrection. This means, ironically, that in misunderstanding Jesus’ words they were fulfilling Jesus’ words by condemning Him and taking one step closer to the cross.

Faced with the truth, they misunderstood the truth, then fulfilled the truth. It is ever the case with lost man that he misunderstands the truth upon seeing it. And modern man misunderstands the truth because he does not believe it even exists. Some years ago, David Samuels was writing against pro-life activists in The New York Times Magazine and said this: “It is a shared if unspoken premise of the world that most of us inhabit that absolutes do not exist and that people who claim to have them are crazy.”[1]

Modern man does not believe that absolute truth exists. His problem is less one of misunderstanding than of simple denial. Even still, when he encounters Jesus, he is apt to misunderstand Jesus. For instance, consider Manson family member Squeaky Fromme’s response to be asked whether or not she thought Charles Manson was Jesus Christ.

“Did you think that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ?” Squeaky hesitated a moment before answering. Would she be the apostle who denied Jesus? Apparently she decided she would not, for she replied: “I think that the Christians in the caves and in the woods were a lot of kids just living and being without guilt, without shame, being able to take off their clothes and lay in the sun…And I see Jesus Christ as a man who came from a woman who did not know who the father of her baby was.”[2]

Yes, ever and again people misunderstand the point of Jesus. Then as now, His message seems to ricochet off of those whose minds and hearts are unprepared to receive Him. This helps us to understand Jesus’ lack of response at this point.

⁶² And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” ^63a But Jesus remained silent.

He remained silent because there was no point to speaking. There are times when human beings are so oblivious to the truth that speech is almost wasted breath. In remaining silent, He also fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah 53:7.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.

Human beings tend to misunderstand the truth when they hear it and to hate the truth when they finally understand it.

Yes, human beings tend to misunderstand the truth when they first hear it. However, when they finally understand it, human beings tend to hate the truth. This is evident in the trial of Jesus when He plainly reveals to them who He is.

^63b And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

There is profound and tragic irony in Caiaphas’ words, “I adjure you by the living God…” In the name of God Caiaphas accuses God and then condemns God for revealing that He is God! Jesus responds:

⁶⁴ Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

And there it is: the truth plain and simple. This Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and He reigns in power. Caiaphas? Response?

⁶⁵ Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. ⁶⁶ What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” ⁶⁷ Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, ⁶⁸ saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

This is how the world responds to the truth: misunderstanding then outright hatred. It is fascinating to see Jesus, the truth, standing alone among the majority who miss it. It is even more fascinating to consider how much weight we grant the opinion of the majority today in light of this fact. More than this, it is fascinating and curious to see how much weight we grant the pronouncements of the media and Hollywood celebrates, as if the opinions of either have any claim to accuracy.

See Jesus standing here alone against the majority who cannot see the truth and it will forever call into question the supposed wisdom of the mob. The idea of truth by majority vote is a terrifying idea indeed. In reality, the truth is generally missed and despised.

And it is mocked. After spitting on Jesus, slapping Jesus, and striking Jesus, they mocked Him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

Again, behold how the world responds to the truth and take comfort when you are similarly despised for the truth.

But the truth is the truth regardless of our reaction to it, and the truth is named Jesus.

The world may misunderstand and then hate the truth, but its doing so does not render it less true. The truth is the truth regardless of our reaction to it, and the truth is named Jesus. Jesus Himself said in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” In doing so He went beyond merely claiming to know the truth or have the truth. He actually claimed to be the truth.

This is what renders the trial of Jesus so Kafkaesque, so nightmarish, so absurd. Mankind is privileged to look the truth in the eye, and his response is utter disdain. In fact, in the name of truth they seek to destroy the truth.

Part of following Jesus is embracing the conviction that Jesus is the truth even if the truth of Jesus stands alone against the alleged truths of the world. Dostoevsky once wrote the following:

I believe there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic and more perfect than the Saviour; I say to myself with jealous love that not only is there no one else like Him, but that there could be no one. I would say even more. If any one could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth. There is in the world only one figure of absolute beauty: Christ. That infinitely lovely figure is as a matter of course an infinite marvel.[3]

This is occasionally quoted as a positive statement of devotion to Christ. However, I would like to object to the second part of this, the part in which Dostoevsky writes that he would prefer to stay with Christ even “if the truth really did exclude Christ.” As I read this, he is not speaking of the truth as defined by the world but the actual truth. In other words, if Jesus was not the truth Dostoevsky would still prefer Jesus.

To be charitable, Dostoevsky was probably simply lost in an admirable and maybe even enviable moment of ecstatic praise. Maybe he was trying to make a bigger point and was being a bit careless with His words. However he came to write this, I disagree. If Jesus is not the truth then Jesus is a lie and it does no good to say that we would prefer Jesus even if Jesus was not the truth. As a mental exercise, imagine how Jesus might respond if you were to say such a thing to Him: “Jesus, I believe you whether you are actually telling the truth or not.” I wonder if He would receive such a sentiment given how clear He was to establish His truthfulness.

No, we stand with Jesus not regardless of whether or not He is truth but because He is truth. We trust Him because He is trustworthy. We praise Him because He is praiseworthy. We follow Him because He alone knows the way. We pray in His name because it is only in and through His name that we can actually pray. We stand with Jesus because those who accused Him of telling a lie were in fact wrong. We stand with Jesus because He is the way, the truth, and the life, and nobody comes to the Father except through Him.

In the trial of Jesus, a lie was elevated above the truth. In the Church of Jesus, the truth must be elevated above the lie. And here is the truth: that man is a sinner but that God is a saving God. And here is truth as well: that this saving God sent His Son, Jesus, to lay down His life on the cross then rise victorious from the dead to save us, to redeem us, to purchase us for Himself.

Dear friends, Jesus is not on trial, we are. But the good news of the gospel is that the Judge has left His bench and stood beside us. More than that: the Judge has left His bench, stood beside us, and taken our punishment onto Himself, paying the price for our sins on the cross so that we might be forgiven. So the Judge becomes the condemned willingly so that the condemned can be set free.

All you need do is let the Son set you free. Trust in Jesus. He is merciful and mighty to save.

 

[1] RJN, “While We’re At It,” First Things. August/September 1999.

[2] Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (Vincent Bugliosi) – Highlight Loc. 10294-9

[3] Quoted in Calvin Miller. The Book of Jesus. (Simon and Schuster), p.52.