Timely and Inspiring Prophetic Analysis so you can Prepare.

By Pastor Hal Mayer

Dear friends,

Last month we looked at some of the reasons why the Sanhedrin were so upset with Christ and what led to His illegal trial. We found that he Had exposed their hypocrisy to the point of exasperation. They were not willing to be reformed and they were not willing to be exposed. That was why they violated Hebrew law in order to get Christ and destroy him. We applied those to our time because they are prophetic. No doubt you recognize similar events in our experience today. Though our constitution today protects us, from such abuse, it will be cast aside like Hebrew law at the trial of Christ. God’s people, who follow Christ and keep all of His law, will be cast into the crucible like He was. This month we’re going to look at some more of the unjust treatment of Christ and try to understand how injustice will come into play again. As we begin let us pray.

Our Father in heaven, we understand that a serious time is coming to Your people, and much of the same principles will apply to those faithful souls living at the end of time that applied in Christ’s day to the Holy One of Israel. Help us to prepare for that time and be wholly committed to Christ. As we study today, please send Your Holy Spirit to enlighten our minds and to regenerate our souls. Thank you. In Jesus name, amen.

Turn with me in your Bibles to Mark 14:55 and 56.

“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.

Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, oversaw this nighttime preliminary tribunal. Gathered together were only part of the Sanhedrin. Joseph Caiaphas had been appointed to the office of High Priest by Valerius Gratus in the year 18 AD. He was High Priest for 18 years, the longest of any of Annas’ family, which boasted altogether six High Priests. Caiaphas means “oppressor,” a very appropriate name for the chief enemy of Christ and His apostles. His intellectual caliber was rather low and the power that he wielded was only nominal. Annas was the real power behind the throne as long as he lived.

But Caiaphas carried the same spirit as Annas. He was a proud and cruel man, overbearing and intolerant. Among his family connections were Sadducees, proud, bold, reckless, full of ambition and cruelty, which they hid under a cloak of pretended righteousness. In spite of this spirit, Caiaphas spoke with great authority and his voice was considered to be like the voice of God even to the Sanhedrin. Do some have a similar mentality today about church leaders? Do they treat them as if they are the voice of God?

From His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane to the end of His trial and the sentence of death by the “Great Sanhedrin,” as it was called, the entire proceedings against Jesus were illegal on more than a score of different counts.

Ancient Hebrew law forbade a judge or a magistrate, from questioning an accused person judicially, or sitting in judgment on his legal rights. And, by the way, Hebrew law forbade one-judge courts, the smallest tribunal having three, and their largest, the “Great Sanhedrin,” having 71 judges. You would think that having nearly 71 judges, Jesus would have had someone among them that would defend Him. But they had removed or excluded those that would do so from this trial.

The law forbade any but the leading witnesses to present criminal charges. They could not originate in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin only investigated those charges brought before it by the leading witnesses. In this case, the Bible tells us that Caiaphas, the presiding officer at the trial made the successful accusation. Caiaphas was not allowed to make an accusation. His job was primarily to find evidence in the defense of the accused. This was a severe abuse of Hebrew law as much as it was an abuse of Jesus’ rights.

The Hebrew law also specifically forbade private preliminary hearings. In the case of Christ, the Sanhedrin held two preliminary hearings to find evidence against Him, or dig it out of Him, in order to condemn Him. This was another illegality. They were not trying to present the evidence to Christ so that He could understand the accusations and to prepare His defense. They were not trying to help Christ; they were attempting to condemn Him. Though preliminary hearings were allowed under Roman law and in many country’s laws today, use the grand jury to determine if the case should be brought to court, there was no such rule in Hebrew jurisprudence. Now turn to John 18:19-23.

“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

Christ was placing Himself squarely upon His rights as a Hebrew citizen. Only two or more witnesses that agreed in their testimony could accuse Him, according to Hebrew jurisprudence. Caiaphas and the council of the “pious” Sanhedrin were obliged to find witnesses to the crimes. They actually went looking for witnesses that would charge Christ with crimes worthy of death and found none. This is significant. The preliminary examination should have stopped right there, and Jesus should have been released. Not only was the action of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin to find witnesses to accuse Christ illegal, but it also revealed Caiaphas’ extreme animus toward Jesus, which disqualified him from being a judge at the trial. For the law required a judge to be impartial and to judge righteously.

The Bible tells us that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin then attempted to find leading witnesses to testify against Christ. These witnesses had to agree substantially in their testimony. The witnesses were to formally indict the accused. No one else could bring an indictment. Leading witnesses were the only prosecutors known to the Talmudic criminal jurisprudence. But the scriptures tell us that no witnesses could be found.

But Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin had to find some witnesses against Christ, then at least they could give an appearance of legality to the sham trial. So, they resorted to finding false witnesses, which no doubt involved bribery. This too was illegal and disqualified the judge who was to seek evidence in behalf of the accused. But it also condemned the false witnesses to suffer the penalty they sought to bring upon the accused. Those who bore false witness against Christ were thus to receive the death penalty. You will find that in Deuteronomy 19:16-19.

“If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.”

Obviously, they were guaranteed that they would be protected from this earthly penalty, though they will not escape the penalty in the final judgment. The Jewish authorities had paid spies to stalk Jesus constantly, and shadow Him. These informers were entirely unlawful. Probably, it was these paid spies who were brought forward to testify against Jesus, and whose testimony was also too contradictory to get a conviction. Luke 20:20 tells us that this was the case.

“And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.”

But even these witnesses could not agree on their testimony. To indict Christ under these circumstances was doubly criminal in the eyes of God, in the first place because the trial itself was illegal in every way, and in the second place because these evil witnesses perjured themselves.

But let me ask you, do you think false witnesses will be used against God’s people in the last days? Absolutely! In every sham trial false witnesses or accusations are used to build the case against the accused. The Bible tells us what God thinks of false witnesses. The first is Proverbs 6:16, and 19.

“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him… A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”

Another is Proverbs 19:5. “A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.”

And Jesus Himself said in Matthew 15:19. “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies…”

Essentially Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin were willing to knowingly lose their salvation, to avoid losing their power. They had to maintain unity and decisiveness against Christ. They had to insist that their authority be held up or else their system would disintegrate. Does this sound familiar to anything that has happened recently? Will it happen again? I think so.

In any enlightened system of jurisprudence, the accused is clearly advised of the definite and exact nature of the criminal charges against him. Under no other conditions could the prisoner properly prepare for a defense before his judges at a trial without this. Certainty of the accusations in any indictment under the ancient Mosaic code was one of the cardinal rules of the entire criminal proceedings. If this was not followed, there was no case. We still follow this practice today in courts of law. But this principle is very lacking in church proceedings and among religious institutions.

The way the Sanhedrin acted toward Christ, was essentially the same as the infamous Inquisition in the Middle Ages. You could not have the charges clearly spelled out if you were accused. You had to play a cat and mouse game to avoid being convicted of even thought crimes. And thought crimes are what Jesus faced, as well as speech crimes. Have you ever wondered why there is so much emphasis on censorship these days? Satan is getting this organized again in our time.

You also had to show your undying loyalty to the Catholic Church, to avoid being convicted of a crime. Jesus was considered to be disloyal to the church leaders of his day too. If you were denounced before the Inquisition, you would not be able to face those who bore testimony against you. You could not know what their exact charges were. It was the job of the inquisitors to get you to say something that could be used against you. have you ever wondered why so many laws these days are broad and vague. Satan is getting this organized again in our time.

Does this sound like church trials today if they can be called that? The conference executive committee meets behind closed doors, makes its decision, and prepares its strategy, all unseen to the church members or the accused. It is not done in the light of day where the proceedings are open to all. The executive committee is unaccountable for its actions. And the church manual even supports this. It makes the conference president the central authority over all the churches. He, with his mostly hand-picked and therefore, cooperative committee, can dictate to the church what they please even if it is not according to God’s revealed will. They can hire, fire, move pastors around, according to their wishes, regardless of what the local church’s think or desire. And he controls the churches too. He can grant benefits to the churches provided the church cooperates with him and his committee. And if they won’t, they simply withhold the benefits and in extreme cases they will actually unilaterally close the church and change the locks on the doors. And he does this with impunity. And conservative conferences can be worse than liberal conferences. This is “God’s” church today. It is essentially a good old boys’ club. They support and protect each other while pulling a cloak over their actions to conceal any injustice and wrong motive if they can. And when this underbelly is exposed, they will go into defensive mode to preserve their authority.

In the trial of Christ two charges were leveled. One was the charge that Christ was trying to destroy the temple, the great national institution, and seduce the people away from their ancient allegiance in the matter of His claims about the destruction of the temple. The Sanhedrin was tasked with the preservation of that institution at all costs, and by all means, much like church leaders today. It seemed to them that they had no choice but to prosecute Christ because the alternative was an existential threat to their sacred institution, which had already been stripped of its divine endorsement and the whole system was about to come to an end. Church leaders today do everything they can to avoid exposure of their hidden agendas and their efforts to hang on to their power. Thus, you see similar issues today.

If false charges leveled today are examined, they will fall apart before honest minds, just like in Christ’s day. So, consequently the institutional organization typically does not clearly reveal the charges to the person accused or to those that support him. Only vague references to some misbehavior are made, thus suggesting that there is some great evil that he has done. They also do not give him opportunity to defend himself with full knowledge of the exact nature of the accusations. He is only given the opportunity to defend himself with a vague understanding of the charges.

The other indictment of Christ was a charge of blasphemy, preferred by Caiaphas himself in the adjuration that he gave to Jesus. When the false witnesses failed to agree, their contradictory testimony was rejected and thrown out, and the charge of sedition was abandoned. Keep in mind, this was a preliminary trial before the Jews designed to unite them against Christ. The charges of sedition were loudly raised again before Pilate. And this happens today too. The accused, having thought that certain charges had been debunked and withdrawn, only to hear them raised again when most useful to his accusers.

Caiaphas had no choice but to abandon the charge of sedition at the preliminary trial. He suddenly shifted to a new charge, that of blasphemy. Caiaphas was shrewd. Hebrew law forbade anyone but the leading witnesses to present the charge. Neither the Sanhedrin, nor individual Sanhedrists could bring original charges. The High Priest, who was one of the judges of Jesus could not do it. So, instead he made an accusation against Christ in the form of a question that would unite the Sanhedrin against Him. Let’s read it from Matthew 26:63.

“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.”

Caiaphas deliberately assumed the role of an accuser, in violation of the law, and charged Jesus, in the form of an adjuration, with blasphemy, in claiming to be “the Christ, the Son of God.”

Caiaphas, being a judge, could not possibly be a witness; and consequently, could not become an accuser, therefore, the indictment against Jesus was illegal. Nor could a judge prosecute the accused. Remember, in Hebrew jurisprudence, the judge was a defender, not an accuser. A judge or a jury even today is to decide between viewpoints of the prosecution versus the defense. In fact, under Hebrew jurisprudence, the judge was to look for evidence to support the defense in his arguments. But Caiaphas had determined to get the condemnation of Christ by whatever means was necessary, and was willing to do that which was illegal, even that which actually condemned him, to achieve that goal. And it was all done at a secret session at night. Justice has always demanded public hearings for the accused in order to avoid conspiracy.

Jesus could not hold His peace because of His loyalty to God and to God’s glory. His answer is recorded in Matthew 26:64.

“Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

From Desire of Ages, page 706 we read why Christ had to answer this question.

“He knew that to answer now would make His death certain. But the appeal was made by the highest acknowledged authority of the nation, and in the name of the Most High. Christ would not fail to show proper respect for the law. More than this, His own relation to the Father was called in question. He must plainly declare His character and mission. Jesus had said to His disciples, “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32. Now by His own example He repeated the lesson.”

So, Caiaphas entrapped Christ. This is also a legal problem with the trial. But Caiaphas had achieved his goal. Now he could get the Sanhedrin to condemn Christ. But the trial was illegal from another perspective. In capital cases Hebrew law did not allow judgment to proceed in one day. In this case, the entire proceedings took place on the 14th of Nisan. The Mishna was clear on this point.

“In pecuniary cases a trial may end the same day it began. In capital cases acquittal may be pronounced the same day, but the pronouncing of sentence of death must be deferred until the following day in the hope that some argument may meanwhile be discovered in favor of the accused.” Mishna n 8; “Sanhedrin,” 32.

The capital trial of Jesus was also illegal because it was held on the day preceding the Sabbath. The courts of justice were not permitted to meet on the weekly Sabbath or on a festival Sabbath. One reason was that the law did not permit writing on the Sabbath or on any holy day, and no court could do business without the proceedings being recorded by the scribes. So capital cases were not to be tried on Friday for the reason that if the defendant is found guilty the trial cannot be continued the next day on the Sabbath. Again, the Mishna is clear.

“They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath, nor on that of any festival.” Mishna, “Sanhedrin,” IV, 1.

The trial and execution of Jesus was not only on Friday, the day of “preparation” of the weekly Sabbath, but also the day preceding the Passover Sabbath. This particular Sabbath was “an high day” because the Passover and the seventh day Sabbath fell on the same day. So, the proceedings against Christ were doubly illegal.

The sentence against Jesus was unlawful because it was founded on his own confession. Caiaphas asked Christ if He was the Son of God. Christ responded in the affirmative, and then made an awful prediction that Caiaphas and those present would see Him coming in the clouds of heaven with power of judgement.

Desire of Ages, page 707 says, “For a moment the divinity of Christ flashed through His guise of humanity. The high priest quailed before the penetrating eyes of the Saviour. That look seemed to read his hidden thoughts and burn into his heart. Never in afterlife did he forget that searching glance of the persecuted Son of God.”

Hebrew law did not permit a man to be condemned to death by his own self-accusation. The common people did not know the intricacies of the law; therefore, judges were not permitted to convict a man on his own testimony. The judges of Christ however, violated the law in exacting a confession from Jesus and then using it against him. Such confession had to be properly attested by at least two other witnesses.

One of the strangest rules of law ever known was the provision in Hebrew law that a person could not be convicted on a unanimous vote of the judges. A unanimous verdict of guilt had the effect of an acquittal. If none of the judges defended the culprit and all pronounced him guilty, having no defender in court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed. This law was necessary because Hebrew law did not permit any advocates for the defense. Actually, the judges were the advocates for the defense and were to look for evidence that could be applied to the defense. In order to give an element of mercy the defendant must have at least one friend among the judges to speak in his behalf.

In our day, a conviction comes as a result of a unanimous verdict of a jury. But with the Hebrew Sanhedrin unanimity was fatal and resulted in an acquittal. To the Jewish mind a unanimous conviction was almost equivalent to mob violence. And indeed, it was mob violence that convicted Christ and condemned Him to death. There were mobs everywhere. There was a mob in the Garden of Gethsemane, at the preliminary trial, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin acted like a mob. And there was a mob before Pilate. Do you think that at the end of time there will be angry mobs that will take matters into their own hands? Listen to this from Great Controversy, page 631.

“The heavenly sentinels, faithful to their trust, continue their watch. Though a general decree has fixed the time when commandment keepers may be put to death, their enemies will in some cases anticipate the decree, and before the time specified, will endeavor to take their lives. But none can pass the mighty guardians stationed about every faithful soul. Some are assailed in their flight from the cities and villages; but the swords raised against them break and fall powerless as a straw. Others are defended by angels in the form of men of war.”

Couple that with this also from Great Controversy, pages 635 – 636.

“The people of God—some in prison cells, some hidden in solitary retreats in the forests and the mountains—still plead for divine protection, while in every quarter companies of armed men, urged on by hosts of evil angels, are preparing for the work of death.

“With shouts of triumph, jeering, and imprecation, throngs of evil men are about to rush upon their prey, when, lo, a dense blackness, deeper than the darkness of the night, falls upon the earth. Then a rainbow, shining with the glory from the throne of God, spans the heavens and seems to encircle each praying company. The angry multitudes are suddenly arrested. Their mocking cries die away. The objects of their murderous rage are forgotten. With fearful forebodings they gaze upon the symbol of God’s covenant and long to be shielded from its overpowering brightness.”

To the Jewish mind, a unanimous condemnation seemed like a conspiracy. The element of mercy, which was required to enter into every Hebrew verdict, was absent in such a case… The verdict was not the result of sober reflection, careful reasoning and calm deliberation. It was mob violence indeed. That Jesus was condemned by unanimous vote is evident from the scripture.

Mark 14:63, 64. “Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

This was prophesied in Isaiah 59:16; 63:3, 5.

“And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.”

“I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.”

“And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.”

Jesus suffered the most despicable injustice before His earthly tribunal without an intercessor, that we might receive justice in the heavenly tribunal with Him as our intercessor. Don’t expect a fair trial on this earth. We will see this despicable behavior again.

To remain silent would have been to Jesus’ legal advantage because no man was compelled to say or do anything that would be prejudicial to his cause. He would have been within His legal rights. But silence on this occasion would virtually have been a denial of His identity and mission. That would have been also an advantage to Satan who was constantly trying to get Christ to deny His identity and mission. And that is Satan’s agenda today as well. He wants us to deny the identity and mission of Christ and His church today. Likewise, silence on our part under some circumstances is a denial of Christ. An open and verbal denial such as Peter’s is not the only way to betray our Lord.

The trial of Jesus was illegal because the Sanhedrin entered into a conspiracy to condemn Him to death. After the raising of Lazarus, the Sanhedrin were so frustrated that the people were going after Christ and believing Him. They had to do something. They determined to put Him to death by whatever means it took. Even if the whole thing was illegal and immoral. We see that John 11:48-53.

“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and 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. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.”

From Desire of Ages, page 539 we read the following. “While the council was at the height of its perplexity, Caiaphas the high priest arose… Caiaphas had studied the prophecies, and although ignorant of their true meaning, he spoke with great authority and assurance.”

Caiaphas speculated that people would revolt. Here is Desire of Ages, page 539 again.

“Caiaphas urged that after this miracle the followers of Jesus would likely rise in revolt. The Romans will then come, he said, and will close our temple, and abolish our laws, destroying us as a nation. What is the life of this Galilean worth in comparison with the life of the nation? If He stands in the way of Israel’s well-being, is it not doing God a service to remove Him? Better that one man perish than that the whole nation be destroyed.”

We will see this reasoning again. You can see how the human mind justifies and rationalizes evil. Caiaphas was the primary one who suggested that Jesus be put to death. Caiaphas was doing his job. As the top church leader, he was charged with the protection of the church institution from any and all threats. He could only see an existential threat to the church and therefore he chose to rise to its defense. He was jealous of Christ because Christ had more influence than he did. And he was the church leader. He was the General Conference president, so to speak. To him, Jesus was only a common man, even though he had much evidence to the contrary. When he spoke these words, he was also concerned about his own loss of authority. Do these sorts of considerations enter into the minds of church leaders today? Desire of Ages, page 541 tells us that Satan himself inspired the council with Christ’s condemnation. Listen to this amazing statement.

“Satan told them that in order to maintain their authority, they must put Jesus to death. This counsel they followed. The fact that they might lose the power they then exercised, was, they thought, sufficient reason for coming to some decision. With the exception of a few who dared not speak their minds, the Sanhedrin received the words of Caiaphas as the words of God. Relief came to the council; the discord ceased. They resolved to put Christ to death at the first favorable opportunity. In rejecting the proof of the divinity of Jesus, these priests and rulers had locked themselves in impenetrable darkness. They had come wholly under the sway of Satan, to be hurried by him over the brink of eternal ruin. Yet such was their deception that they were well pleased with themselves. They regarded themselves as patriots, who were seeking the nation’s salvation.”

Do people have that attitude today, especially in the political realm. This will become increasingly relevant as God’s people come under greater and greater persecution and condemnation. And what about the churches and denominations? Will they also condemn God’s true people in order to preserve their establishments? I don’t know about you, but I can’t help but see the prophetic parallels to the end of time.

According to the law, these Sanhedrists were supposed to be His defenders. But they entered a conspiracy to destroy Him instead. They actually sought for witnesses against Him so that the condemnation would have the appearance of legality and justice. Their disregard of the Hebrew law throughout the trial was profound. It reminds me of the papal inquisition, which shared many of the same principles as were used in the trial of Jesus. The trial was prophetic in that it revealed what they would do to those who were independent of their system and exposed their hypocrisy. The same will be true of end time courts and systems of justice.

Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were marginalized at the council. They could do nothing but watch the proceedings. And watch they did. Listen to this from the SDA Bible Commentary, page 1107.

“Joseph and Nicodemus watched every development at the condemnation and crucifixion of Christ. Not an action escaped them. These men were diligent searchers of the Scriptures, and they were deeply indignant as they saw this man, whom the judges had pronounced to be entirely without fault, placed in the center of two thieves…”

There will be rulers and statesmen at the end of time who see the things done to God’s people that are completely unfair and cruel and they will be indignant like Joseph and Nicodemus. And, like Joseph and Nicodemus, they will do what they can to hold back the winds of strife. Listen to this from Great Controversy, page 610.

“The enemy moves upon his servants to propose measures that would greatly impede the work of God; but statesmen who fear the Lord are influenced by holy angels to oppose such propositions with unanswerable arguments. Thus a few men will hold in check a powerful current of evil.”

But eventually, there comes a point when the arguments for the truth have been presented by the living preacher and by publications. Then God will permit the enemy to oppress God’s true people in a most trying way. The men who have defended God’s people in legislative halls and in courts of justice can do nothing more, and though perplexed and marginalized will watch with increasing indignation as God’s people enter the crucible. Great Controversy, page 612.

“The arguments have been presented. The seed has been sown, and now it will spring up and bear fruit. The publications distributed by missionary workers have exerted their influence, yet many whose minds were impressed have been prevented from fully comprehending the truth or from yielding obedience. Now the rays of light penetrate everywhere, the truth is seen in its clearness, and the honest children of God sever the bands which have held them.”

Great Controversy, pages 611 and 612 give us an idea of what the people thought of the religious leaders in the days of Christ. Let’s read it.

“The interest of the people in Christ and His work had steadily increased. They were charmed with His teaching, but they were also greatly perplexed. They had respected the priests and rabbis for their intelligence and apparent piety. In all religious matters they had ever yielded implicit obedience to their authority. Yet they now saw these men trying to cast discredit upon Jesus, a teacher whose virtue and knowledge shone forth the brighter from every assault. They looked upon the lowering countenances of the priests and elders, and there saw discomfiture and confusion. They marveled that the rulers would not believe on Jesus, when His teachings were so plain and simple. They themselves knew not what course to take. With eager anxiety they watched the movements of those whose counsel they had always followed… Through their reverence for tradition and their blind faith in a corrupt priesthood, the people were enslaved.”

Does this sound like the public church today? Do people have unreasonable reverence, respect, and obedience to church leaders? Do they watch with perplexity those whose council they have always followed? Do they watch them to get clues how they should act in order to stay in the good graces of these church leaders?

Jesus had to disabuse the people in His day of their unquestioning loyalty and reverence for the church leaders. Do you think that is the way people look at church leaders today? Many people want to trust in them, or trust in the institutional church, but they are now disappointed, and some are angry as even the conservative conferences, the last bastions of hope, have failed them. Money and politics, and slavish and immoral collaboration with the government have all been exposed. The church’s underbelly has been laid bare. Because of the pandemic, many people have been surprised at the lack of support from their churches and institutions that they have thought would be there for them. Now many are confused just like the people in Christ’s day. Their consternation is palpable. The one church that was given almost a monopoly on religious liberty has now turned away from that principle and begun to act in ways that cannot be reconciled with scripture.

This is a good thing actually. People need to have their excessive loyalty to church leaders and their dependence on the arm of flesh removed. They need to depend only on Christ for their religious freedom, for their support in conflict, and for their salvation. They have to be divorced from the idea that they will all go to heaven if they are supportive members of the church. They have to be disabused of the idea that the church will help them in every emergency. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be members of the church, for this would not be according to scripture. I’m just saying that we have to become clear in our understanding of what is right and what is wrong according to scripture.

So why was there such a breakdown of justice in the trial of Jesus? Isaiah 59:14-16 is a prophecy concerning Jesus and the society around him. It is also a prophecy about the end times and the society that is, and will be around us.

“And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.”

Isn’t truth fallen in the street today? Isn’t justice standing afar off? Do you think God’s people will face the same policies and the same attitudes that Jesus faced in His day? This world is not our home. And those who depart from evil are Satan’s target. Because of this they will be arrayed against a mighty enemy and a huge juggernaut of overwhelming pressure to accept the false narrative and comply with the enemy’s mandates. If you thought the mandate during the pandemic was difficult, the Sunday law mandate will make that look like child’s play and “a walk in the park.” While it won’t be easy, Christ will stand by your side. Just remember, He is acquainted with every insult and every abuse that is heaped upon God’s people, because He went through worse circumstances than we will ever face. But He is compassionate and will support those who are faithful to Him and His law.

So, don’t be discouraged. Jesus has overcome the enemy, and all darkness and deception. He beat back the darkness and brought great light. And His sacrifice, His voluntary sacrifice, brought us a glorious salvation. When we are aligned with him, we may have trouble, a lot of trouble. But we can be sure that the end is bright with hope. Let us pray.

Our Father which art in heaven, thank you for looking after Your people in this dark world. Thank you for promising a bright future for those who are aligned with You. Please walk by our side as we go through trouble and great trial. Help us to understand the times in which we live and see the prophetic parallels in the sacrifice of Christ. That wonderful event that took place 2000 years ago still has power today. Help us to not be blinded by the church institutions or cowed by leadership. Let us take advantage of the power that You want to give us that we may be overcomers in the battle with the enemy. And please, save us in Your Kingdom. In Jesus name, amen.