A glorious plot twist

Every story ever told can be broken down into three parts:  The beginning; the middle; and the plot twist.  --RL Stine

According to the literary site ReedsyBlog (blog.reedsy.com), "A plot twist is a story development that readers do not expect in which either something shocking happens or something shocking is revealed.  Generally, the storyteller will set up expectations and then 'twist' those expectations by revealing new information through subsequent plot points.  The criteria for a plot twist tends to be made up of the following:  It must be narratively sound, it must be unexpected, and it might be foreshadowed.  To no one's surprise, plot twists are particularly prevalent in mysteries, thrillers, and suspense fiction.  However, the twist takes no prisoners and has reared its head in almost every genre out there." 

At certain points in history, we see those "plot twists" in the historical narrative that might give you whiplash if you lived through it, but that in hindsight we know to be true.  In the same way, the Gospel story as told in Mark 15 takes on a few plot twists of its own.  Here is the beginning of the story.

And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council.  And they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him over to Pilate.  And Pilate asked Him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"  And He answered him, "You have said so."  And the chief priests accused Him of many things.  And Pilate again asked Him, "Have you no answer to make?  See how many charges they bring against you."  But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.  (Mark 15:1-5)

Think of a Venn Diagram with two overlapping circles.  The first circle represents the Jews, with their religious beliefs, their ethical laws, and their expectations.  The second circle represents Pilate and the Romans, with their pagan beliefs, their Law and Order, and their own expectations.  In this narrative, Jesus is in the space where these two circles intersect.

The Jews, especially the Jewish leaders, arrested Jesus and accused Him of claiming to be God.  They did not have legal authority under Roman rule to execute anyone, so they brought Him to Pilate for sentencing.  At the consultation with Pilate, they changed the charge from blasphemy (claiming to be God) to treason (claiming to be King of the Jews), knowing that Pilate would not care about their religious laws but would be bound to prosecute a purveyor of a political uprising.

Pilate was no friend of the Jews.  He was bound to look at the accusations from a group of Jewish zealots with some suspicion.  History tells us that Pilate simply didn't like the Jews, and that he believed they were a stubborn and rebellious people.  For this reason, whenever they brought him a prisoner for execution he immediately expected that there was a hidden agenda at work.  Nevertheless, he was bound to give Jesus a hearing, and to make it appear fair and reasonable.  He heard the accusations of the Jewish leaders, and then asked Jesus to make a defense. "Are you the King of the Jews?"  Jesus' answer was passive yet positive.  "You have said it."  Pilate expected the prisoner to beg for his life, and was amazed that there was not a more passionate or vigorous defense.

Let's now look at the middle of our narrative.

Now at the feast he (Pilate) used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked.  And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas.  And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them.  And he answered them, saying, "Do you want for me to release for you the King of the Jews?"  For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up.  --Mark 15:5-10

The Jewish leaders, the chief priests, Scribes and Pharisees, did indeed see Jesus as a threat to their authority in things both spiritual and political, insofar as their sphere of influence was in jeopardy.  They had put their best case forward to Pilate, making a convincing case that Jesus should be executed.

Pilate, on the other hand, saw that they were jealous of Jesus.  He decided to put them to the test.  It was the season of clemency, and Pilate found a true insurrectionist in the Roman prison, one called Barabbas.  Perhaps to gauge the support that Jesus had among the Jewish people, that is to see how many of them might follow Jesus as their king, he offered to set Jesus free.  If they truly though of Him as their King, then there may be something to the charges brought against Him by the Jews, and Rome would release Him and then keep an eye on Him.  The other choice Pilate gave them was a true criminal, a murderer and insurrectionist who would most certainly be arrested again if set free.  Ironically, the man was called Barabbas, meaning "Son of his father".  Jesus had called Himself the Son of the Father (God).

Here comes the plot twist in our story.

But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead.  And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?" And they cried out again, "Crucify Him."  And Pilate said to them, "Why? What evil has He done?"  But they shouted all the more, "Crucify Him."  So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.  --Mark 15:10-15

The Jewish leaders had expected Jesus to be convicted and executed on the charges they brought against Him.  They did not expect for Barabbas to be a part of the bargain.  Their eyes were so blinded by evil and their hatred of Jesus that they were willing to swallow this bitter pill, the parole of an evil lawbreaker, just to make sure that Jesus was killed.

Pilate had expected the crowd to come to Jesus' aid, to have Him released rather than the convicted criminal called Barabbas.  I don't believe he woke up that morning knowing he would have to quell a near riot over this One with the reputation of peace and healing and forgiveness.

I also don't expect that the man known as Barabbas had any expectation that the One known as the Son of Man would die in his place, yet that is exactly what happened.  Pilate was not the only one amazed at this turn of events, for no one could be as surprised as Barabbas.  He was accused; he was convicted; he was forgiven, and saw Jesus take on the punishment that he himself deserved.

It is the same with you and me.  Yes, all of us, dear friends and readers, stand accused; we stand guilty; we deserve death and eternal separation from God.  But we can look up the One who knew no sin, who became Sin for us and sacrificed Himself for our sin, to be our Savior and Redeemer, the One who took our place.

That, my friend, is a glorious plot twist.

Does fence straddling glorify God?

 

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on His law he meditates day and night.  --Psalm 1:1-2

American stand-up comedian Ralphie Gray (1972-2017) was credited with saying, "I've got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel."  He may have been referencing his morbid obesity that ultimately caused his untimely death at age 45.  However, I think the phrase perfectly sums up the human condition, especially if we are prone to being as inoffensive as possible.  We don't want to rock the boat, so we spend our lives on a tightrope, not moving to the right or to the left for fear of offending one group or another.  Our perpetual fence-straddling results in us becoming bland and ineffectual.  Not only does it impede our influence in the world, but it makes us susceptible to error.  "He who stands for nothing," the saying goes, "will fall for anything."

This is the situation we find the Apostle Peter in when we read today's passage from Mark 14

And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."  But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean."  And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed.  And the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."  But again he denied it.  And after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."  But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak."  And immediately the rooster crowed a second time.  And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times."  And he broke down and wept.  --Mark 14:66-72

 We all remember the scene leading up to this point.  Jesus had taken His disciples to the garden at Gethsemane to pray.  Instead of praying with Him, the disciples (including Peter) slept.  Then Judas led a group of men with authority to arrest Jesus, and Judas kissed Him.  Peter tried to stand up to the men, drawing a sword and raising it above his head, striking with a downward blow to anyone who stood near.  This resulted in his cutting off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the High Priest.  Jesus rebuked Peter, healed the man's ear, then voluntarily left with the soldiers.  Frightened and confused, Peter and the other disciples all ran away.

In our passage today, we see Peter now followed Jesus from a distance.  Staying on the fringes and in the shadows, he wanted to remain incognito while still being close enough to see what would happen.  We know he was in sight of Jesus, because in Luke's account, after the third denial, Jesus turned and looked at Peter (Luke 22:61).  Peter was close enough to see what was happening, but trying to maintain a safe distance.  Safe from what, you may ask?  He was still close enough to be tested and found wanting.  There were still consequences; maybe not harm to his physical body, but close enough to feel guilt and shame.

I want us to notice the progression of sin here.  There was a slippery slope, and although Peter may not have begun with the idea of denying Jesus outright, at each opportunity there was a greater distance between him and the Savior, and the wedge that separated the two was sin.

The first accusation came from a girl, a servant of the high priest who may herself have been on the fringes of the arresting party as they came toward Gethsemane.  She may have seen Peter in the garden with Jesus, may have witnessed him attacking Malchus.  In any case she accused Peter of being a follower of Jesus.  Peter brushed her off, saying he couldn't understand what she was saying.

My wife and I enjoy watching British television programs, especially ones with a historical story line.  In America we may poke fun at regional accents--the Southern drawl, the Midwestern twang, the clipped cadence of the Northeast--but at least we can understand one another.  Accents are more marked in Great Britain, as the Irish brogue or the Scottish allusion to Gaelic roots might make it difficult for a typical Londoner to understand.  In these TV dramas, you may often hear the phrase, "Can't you speak the King's English?"

In this way, the servant girl may have had a pronounced regional accent, and Peter, whose speech was apparently recognizable as a regional Galilean accent (as we see in verse 70) could reasonably say that he didn't understand a word she was saying.  In this way, he sidestepped her accusation and didn't give himself away.

The second accusation came from some bystanders, because the servant girl went and told them.  Peter's initial response to them may have been accusatory, like "Where did you hear that?  From the servant girl over there?  She doesn't know what she's talking about."  Again, a more forceful denial but still not stating his position clearly.  If it had ended here, some might still be able to come to Peter's defense.

How often do we identify with the World rather than admit our wholehearted devotion to the Son of God?  When we hear a non-Christian mocking a televangelist, do we join in and attack the straw man, or do we take the opportunity to point them to Christ?  How often do we adopt New Age phrases like Mother Nature or Mother Earth to avoid conflict with worldly people, rather than introducing them to God the Father, maker of Heaven and Earth?  Surely these practices do not equate with denying Christ outright, at least in our own minds.  Sometimes, though, self justification is a slippery slope; see Psalm 1:1.

At the final opportunity, the bystanders have been talking amongst themselves, putting two and two together.  The servant girl, who may or may not have been an eye-witness of Peter following Jesus, confronted Peter.  Peter's accent showed him to be from Galilee, and wasn't that where Jesus was from as well?  If so, what was Peter doing in Jerusalem, in the courtyard of the High Priest on the very night that Jesus had been arrested?  The evidence was growing.  When they put it to him plainly, however, Peter swore he had never met Jesus.

Unfortunately, this was Peter's MO.  We know he repented of this particular sin, but years later there was an incident at Antioch described by the Apostle Paul in Galatians chapter 2.  Peter had been preaching to and fellowshipping with the Gentiles, but when the Jews of the circumcision party came, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and sat with the Jews, following their rituals and kosher diets.  Galatians 2:11 says that Paul "opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."  Hypocrisy can be seen at either end of the spectrum, as Peter clearly demonstrates.  Sometimes, we do too.

The only other time Peter is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark is at the resurrection, when the Angel appeared to Mary Magdalene.  The Angel proclaimed that Mary was looking for Jesus in the wrong place, that he was not here (in the tomb) but had risen from the dead.  Then the Angel gave Mary specific instructions: "But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He is going before you to Galilee.  There you will see Him, just as He told you." (Mark 16:7).  Imagine Peter's reaction to being singled out in this way.  Was he not one of the disciples?  Was he excluded because he had denied Jesus?  The story is not complete without the extension of grace shown to Peter by Jesus as seen in John chapter 21.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?"  He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."  He said to him, "Feed My lambs."  He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"  He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."  He said to him, "Tend my sheep."  He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?"  Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" and he said to Him, "Lord, You know everything; You know that I love You."  Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.  Truly, truly I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go."  (This He said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this He said to him, "Follow Me."  --John 21: 15-19

Peter had denied Jesus three times.  Three times Jesus asked him, "Peter, do you love me?" and Peter was given three opportunities to profess his love for the Savior.  Jesus gave him his purpose and his vocation when He said, "Feed My sheep."  Jesus showed him grace by saying that when he was younger, Peter was in charge of his life; now, he was to follow Jesus even unto death.  His life was not his own.  1 Corinthians 6:20 tells us the same thing: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?  You are not your own, for you were bought with a price.  So glorify God with your body."

Jesus gave Peter another chance, then encouraged him to glorify God the rest of his life.  He bids us do the same, for His glory.

A Kangaroo Court

Definition of kangaroo court

1 : a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted. 2 : a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures.

We all seem to love courtroom dramas, as they are one of the most successful genres on television.  The program Law & Order ran for 20 years from 1990 to 2010, with many successful spin-offs.  The original series was brought back, premiering again February 24, 2022.

Many of us who have never actually been in a courtroom base our understanding of procedures and practices from those successful movies and television series.  Most of us can spot plot holes before we can identify a holes in a legal argument, but a good writer can point them out to us.

In the Bible, we see an example of a kangaroo court, with the legal procedures thrown out the window and the witnesses all contradicting one another.  Let's read about it in Mark 14.

And they led Jesus to the high priest.  And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together.  And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest.  And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire.  Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but they found none.  For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimony did not agree.  And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands'."  Yet even about this their testimony did not agree.  And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, "Have You no answer to make?  What is it that these men testify against You?"  But He remained silent and made no answer.  Again the high priest asked Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  And Jesus said, "I AM, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."  And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need?  You have heard His blasphemy.  What is your decision?"  And they all condemned Him as deserving death.  And some began to spit on Him and to cover His face and to strike Him, saying to Him, "Prophesy!" and the guards received Him with blows.  --Mark 14: 53-65

 Here's what one commentary had to say about the proceedings: "Lawyers who have studied these proceedings say the trial of our Lord was a travesty of justice and a mockery of legality. The place where Jesus was tried was illegal. The Sanhedrin was required to hold its hearings in the hall of stones in the temple, but Jesus was tried in the private residences of Annas and Caiaphas. A case could not be tried at night, yet Jesus was tried at night. A person was not to be tried on a feast day, yet Jesus was tried during Passover. The proceedings themselves were illegal as the judge was the prosecutor and the one who actually pressed the case against Jesus. The witnesses had to agree, but these witnesses did not agree. Jesus was convicted before He was tried." (Ref: https://www.family-times.net/commentary/mark-14-53/ ).

I saw something interesting in my study of this passage, with some help from Greek scholars online.  Verse 55 says they were trying to find witnesses to testify against Jesus.  The word for "witness" used here is martyria, from which we get our English word "martyr."  We all know what that means--someone who stakes his life on his testimony, and is willing to lose his life for the sake of the Truth.  In the trial of Jesus, there were people who gave false witness, and the Greek word used there is pseudomartyreo.  We all know the word "pseudo" means not genuine, or a sham.  When you put the prefix pseudo in front of the word martyr, you either get someone who is willing to give up his life for a lie, or someone pretending to stake his life to his words (but not really.)

So the trial was illegal, the witnesses were telling blatant falsehoods and contradicting each other, and the high priest asks Jesus to say something in His own defense.  Jesus remains silent.  Isaiah 53:7 says, "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."  This is why Jesus is the perfect sacrificial Lamb.

He was perfect, without blame.  The book of Leviticus sets out the rules for blood sacrifice, and each time the lamb is mentioned, it is emphasized that it must be spotless, without blemish.  Many stood to accuse Jesus, but their accusations did not stick, because they were patently false and easily contradicted with truth.  He was sinless, without blame.

His blood was sprinkled by the priests.  Leviticus states that the priest should take the blood of the lamb and sprinkle it on the altar, making atonement for the sins of the people.  In other places the priests were to lay their hands on the animal, transferring their guilt to it.  In this violent scene outlined in Mark 14, the priests were likely the first ones to draw blood, beating Jesus about the head and shoulders before handing Him off to the soldiers, who continued the beating.  If He was bleeding before this, then by slapping Him in the face they sprinkled His blood on themselves.  His blood was literally on their hands.

He was acceptable to God.  Many of the sacrifices in the Old Testament were burnt offerings, and God's acceptance was noted by the phrase, "an aroma pleasing to God."  Being from Texas, I know that a good barbeque can have a pleasing smell, and the aroma can be carried throughout the air.  I think, though, that God was speaking there not so much about burning flesh and the smell of it as the pleasant scent of obedience to His commands.  So when the high priest asked Jesus if he was the Son of the Blessed One (that it, God), Jesus answered, "I AM."  This was the name that God called Himself to Moses, and the priests all knew that.  Furthermore, Jesus prophesied that He would be seated at God's right hand, and would come down on the clouds from His exalted position to be seen and worshiped by all men one day.

It is interesting that the one argument that is recorded from the false witnesses was what Jesus had said about the Temple.  John 2:19 says, "Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'."  A couple of verses later it is explained that "He was speaking about the temple of His body."  In their pseudo testimony, they used the phrase "not made with hands."  The writer of Hebrews says that Jesus became our High Priest, and continues the same metaphor.  

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.  For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. --Hebrews 9:11-14

 Because of His sacrifice and His position as High Priest, we who are chosen by Him are assured a place in heaven.  2 Corinthians 5:1 says, "For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Jesus was condemned by a sham court and sentenced to death so that we might be covered in His blood so that we are not condemned and can attain eternal life.  Praise God for His unspeakable gift!