Let's open up the Gospel of Mark, once again. The Gospel of Mark, chapter 14, verses 53 to 65. Mark, Gospel of Mark, chapter 14, verses 53 to 65. This says a word of God. They led Jesus away to the high priest, and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. But Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he sat with his servants and warmed himself at the fire. Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore a false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree. And then some rose up and bore false witness against him, saying, We have heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But not even then did their testimony agree. And the chief priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you? But he kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, saying to him, are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Jesus said, I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest tore his clothes and said, What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think? And they all condemned him to be deserving of death. Then some began to spit on him, and to blindfold him, and to beat him, and to say to him, prophesy. And the officers struck him with the palms of their hands. So says God's word. Well, church, this is our fourth and final message on the trial of Jesus before the Jewish council, the Sanhedrin. And during our time together in Mark's gospel, we've come a long way in retracing the footsteps of our Lord. And from the beginning of his public ministry at the Jordan River to his inquisition now in the private quarters of Caiaphas. In these final moments of his earthly life, we followed Jesus from the intimacy of the upper room into the darkness of Gethsemane. We witnessed his agony as he wrestled to accept the contents of the cup that the Father commanded him to drink. We followed him through his betrayal, right into this trial. And through the schemes of these men, we've been given quite incredible glimpses into the sovereign plan and wisdom of God. And yet, for all that we've uncovered, even in this passage, the ground beneath this passage is still rich. And so I want us to go once more into this provisional courtroom, because that's what it was, private quarters of Caiaphas, provisional courtroom. Well, let's enter once again, now, not just to observe, but to behold the glory of the Lamb of God, who bore the burden of our guilt upon Himself. His glory is revealed in this trial, quite paradoxically, and it's revealed through three lines of testimony that are given about him. The testimony of the witnesses, false witnesses, that of the high priest, and that of Jesus himself. And the first, which we went into detail about last Lord's Day, it was a testimony of the false witnesses who accused Jesus of a conspiracy to destroy the temple. And though they were dishonest, they inadvertently testified to the glory of Christ by referencing his prophecy which he gave in John chapter 2 and the 19th verse of that chapter where he spoke of his own body as the temple which he said he would raise up in three days. Their testimony invoked the memory of that prophecy, precisely as it was on the verge of fulfillment. And thus, their testimony, bringing in that prophecy, really had the opposite effect to what they intended, because they intended to discredit Jesus by it. And really, Jesus was validated by it when he rose from the dead in just three days time. He effectively refreshed everybody's memories after a couple years that Jesus gave that prophecy as it was on the precipice of fulfillment. And further, they accused him of being an anti-Messiah. Remember that? We talked about that. They accused him of being, well, essentially an anti-Christ. Because everybody knew that the true Messiah, the son of David, when he would come, he would be the builder of the great end time temple of God. The greatest temple to ever exist. But now here they are in this courtroom, charging him with intending to destroy the temple instead of build it. In reality though, Jesus was not the temple destroyer, They were. His persecutors were. They destroyed the temple of his body when they killed him. And he, by his resurrection, then raised up the greatest temple of all time, just like he said he would do. And he now fulfills and surpasses the temple's role in every way because he is the greatest dwelling place of God with men. He is the greatest priesthood. He is the greatest sacrifice. He is the greatest source of living water. And he is the greatest center of worship. And he is the very center of the true Israel of God. And he fulfills the Old Testament's, the Old Temple's typologically historical pattern. He fulfills the Old Temple's typologically historical pattern because Similar to how the old temple experienced the fate of construction and destruction and restoration, the body of Jesus likewise went through a process of life and death and resurrection. Only God could make patterns repeat and fulfill themselves like that. And so what Mark is showing us in this passage is that Jesus is, indisputably, the Davidic Messiah who builds God's eternal house. His identity as Messiah is attested by the testimony given by his opponents. They accuse him of being a false Christ, but when you trace back what they said to the actual words of Jesus, it ends up proving that he's the true Christ. So that was the first line of testimony revealing the glory of Christ in this trial. It's a testimony that God amazingly invokes from the mouths of his adversaries who sought to discredit Jesus, but in the process they paved the way for his validation. And this line of testimony reveals the glory of Christ as the greater son of David, as a Lord's anointed king that the prophet said would come. But the next two lines of testimony here declare his kingship also. And yet what Jesus adds to this testimony by his own foregoing action is just as remarkable, especially at this time and place in history. Because the testimony Jesus gives here by his actions, or we might say by his lack of action or speech, it's just as remarkable as the testimony given by his words. Now, look again at how Jesus initially responds to the high priest, to this interrogation in verses 60 to 61. The high priest stood up in the midst, it says, and asked Jesus, saying, do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you? But it says he kept silent. He answered nothing. His silence continued even into the Roman phases of his trial. So much so that if you just move forward a little bit into chapter 15 and look at verse 5, It says that Pilate marveled. Pilate had overseen, I don't know, how many trials in his own day? Countless trials. Countless men had been on trial before Pilate in his day. But what struck him about this trial, this peculiar, was the incredible silence of Jesus. Why? Why did Jesus refuse to speak in his own defense? Well, from a practical point of view, we could say it was his wisdom. Because he knew that anything he said would be used against him in this mockery of a court of law. And thus, as the wisdom of God incarnate, The Lord here is fleshing out the Proverbs 1019 principle. In the multitude of words, sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise. The only man who was innocent of not only the charges leveled against him here, but of any sin on any account kept silent. It's a testimony to his humility and self-control. Especially considering that he could have, by his spoken word, he could have prevailed against them by scripture and reason. He could have exposed the secrets of their hearts. He could have called out the illegalities of their proceedings. Or he could have even had them incinerated on the spot. He could have just had the ground open up and swallowed them alive in a shiol. But he didn't. His resignation wasn't because he was powerless. It was rather because his almighty power was under dignified restraint. But another reason he was silent was probably because Have you ever thought about this? It was probably because he could not just categorically deny the charge about intending to destroy the temple. His lack of response might even be a tacit admission that the charge is, in a sense, true. Of course, it was not true in the sense in which they were accusing him There was no conspiracy to destroy the temple on his part, in terms of a conspiracy. He wouldn't destroy the temple as an autonomous act of political revolt. He wouldn't destroy it as a private person or as a mere subject and citizen of the state of Israel. But he would destroy it, eventually, as the glorified co-regent of God. and as the divine judge bringing retribution for their apostasy from the law covenant and their rejection of himself. He was silent, though, because, well, there was no point in trying to explain that. It's not like they would have received him. but also because, well, testifying that he is the co-ruler and co-judge with God that might justly destroy that temple, well, by implication, that testimony would come through the one big statement he makes in verse 62. There's more to his silence here than prudence and conscientious regard for the truth. Because, well, it's not that Jesus didn't respond. What do people say? They read this and they say, Jesus, Jesus didn't respond. No, it's not that he didn't respond. Rather, his silence was his response. It was a sermon in itself. See, he was embodying the suffering servant prophecy of Isaiah 53. And the prophet wrote there, He was oppressed, he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. His silence then represents his innocence and his submission to the purposes of God as a suffering servant. And that's the Word made flesh. That's what He is. The Word made flesh preached even by His silence. And He was preaching, as it were, His utter willingness to submit to the Father's will as the Savior who bears the iniquities of His people. He had perfect peace. That's why He could stay silent. He had perfect peace in commending His cause to the Father because he knew that the Sanhedrin's judgment with all its injustice would be overruled by the father who in his justice would vindicate the son's own righteousness in just a short time. And that's where the next two lines of testimony concerning Christ lead in this trial. As a second aspect of his testimony, or the testimony rather that's given about him, in this trial is that which is given by the High Priest. It's that which is given by the High Priest in verse 61. It says again, the High Priest asked him, saying to him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? In the original, it's actually a statement that implies a question. And so you are the Christ, the son of the blessed. And some think that Mark and the way he constructs it in the original is eliciting a confession of the messiahship of Jesus through the very form of his interrogation. Could be. But whether it is or not, when he says the blessed, that is a Jewish circumlocution for which means it's a roundabout way of saying God. As Jews were typically reluctant to pronounce the divine name or divine titles. And so what Caiaphas is asking him is straight up, not only is he the Messiah, he's not inquiring into his last name when he says, are you the Christ? He's asking if he is the king, the Messiah. And he's also straight up asking him if he is the son of God. But if the high priest asked this as a question, applied it as a question, then how is it? If it is a question, how is it a testimony to who Jesus is? I'm calling it a testimony because the high priest substantiates the most important thing about Jesus that really much of modern scholarship still refuses to admit. Because a very influential stream of biblical scholarship, especially in the last two centuries, has claimed that Jesus himself, Speaking of the real historical man that we call Jesus of Nazareth, they say he never claimed to be co-equal with God. And they've taught that Jesus presented himself, the true Jesus historically presented himself as a mere apocalyptic prophet. And that it was only decades after he died that groups of his followers then came along and manufactured the biblical documents through a process of gross exaggeration and embellishment. And that when they did, they supposedly made Jesus a legend by attributing to him miracles that he never actually did and claims to divinity that he never actually made. And thus it is claimed that the real Jesus of Nazareth never himself claimed to be the divine Messiah who's co-equal with God. Attributing divine sonship to him, they say, didn't take place until much after he died. That's their claim. But here's my point. They're audacious. That's what they are, a bold and audacious claim They are contradicted by the words ascribed to the high priest. And these words, the position revealed by him here, by the way, has gone down in history and been attested by multiple sources. And it's contradicted by the words here ascribed to the high priest because in asking Jesus this question, he is corroborating that Jesus was himself already disclosing in some way or another the fact of his divine sonship. And by the early third century, or rather third decade of the first century, the third decade of the first century, it's evident that claims, claims about Jesus disclosing his divine sonship These claims had come through the grapevine into the ears of the high priest, and now the high priest himself was asking Jesus if Jesus himself avowed the claims that others had been making about him, perhaps even attributing to him at this time. And what does Jesus do? Well, he clearly affirms these claims when he responds in verse 62 and says, I am. And after he affirms that, what does the high priest declare in response? Blasphemy. He declared it was blasphemy because he understood that Jesus was making himself co-equal with God. As if such claim about divine sonship made by Jesus. See, if they had been ambiguous prior to this moment, well, one thing becomes clear then, by this moment. At least one thing becomes clear. And that is, that such claims to divine sonship were completely transparent now. So, it wasn't that the early followers of Jesus made him out to be the son of God as some kind of legend only decades after his death. Rather, he himself claimed that he was. Jesus himself believed that he was. And he formally testified to his divine sonship when he was on trial before the highest court in the nation of Israel in the very presence of the highest internal authority within the nation that had been appointed by God. And so that's the second line of testimony implicitly elicited from the mouth of the high priest. And then the third and by far the greatest testimony is that which is given by Jesus. But what exactly is Jesus saying? Well, there is a massive mountain of truth in the statement that he makes. But first, what does he mean by his initial words, his initial affirmation when he says, I am in verse 62? Well, he might be deliberately echoing the divine name. Remember the great name that was revealed to Moses in the burning bush. There are, to substantiate that possibility, there are places in the Gospels where Jesus does say, I am, as he assumes the divine name, the great and awesome, holy and terrible name unto himself. And if that's what he's doing here, well, it would explain the reaction to the high priest. He's tearing his garments as an expression of grief and outrage, accusing the Lord of blasphemy. So it would explain that. But on the other hand, Jesus might simply be affirming the high priest's question. And maybe then the blasphemy charge arises not from a divine use of I Am as a divine title, but from Jesus' own identification of himself with the exalted man and figure of Daniel chapter 7. As Jesus implies, his personal exaltation to the very throne of God. And whichever one it is, one thing remains clear. I don't want to get into the details of this whole debate. But one thing does remain clear. The response of Jesus here is, at a bare minimum, an affirmative confirmation of Caiaphas' question. It's questionable whether Jesus here applied the divine name to himself, but it's obvious that he was at least affirming the question that Caiaphas asked. And what's most striking about his response is not really that Jesus did affirm the question, but how he affirmed the question. He affirmed it by combining Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 together. And this combination between these two passages is really, it's actually explosive. When he tells Caiaphas, You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power. Okay, that's a direct quote from Psalm 110.1. And what he says, he'll be seen coming with the clouds of heaven. That's a direct quote from Daniel 7.13. And it's nothing out of the ordinary that Jesus pointed to these passages because I explained before, they were some of the most foundational passages from the Old Testament that Jews at this time would use when talking about how God would break into history to establish his kingdom. That's what they were all hanging on the edge of their seats for. When Jesus quoted these passages at his trial, his audience probably understood more about what he was claiming than we tend to give him credit for, because they tended to be familiar with the psalm in that passage of Daniel, very familiar with them. And what's extraordinary then is, well, in the first place, it's how Jesus identifies himself. as the person spoken about in these passages. In fact, there were massive implications behind what Jesus says and how he applies these to himself. And we don't know how much Caiaphas and the rulers on the Sanhedrin understood at the time. We don't know how much of these implications they grasped. But it is clear, nonetheless, that Jesus was making a massive and multifaceted statement about himself. And that should be clear when you understand how the ancient devout Jewish mind worked with reference to the scriptures. Because when a line was quoted from a passage, when a line was quoted, it would often invoke and bring to their minds the larger passage to which it belonged. So when Jesus is on the cross and he cries out, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me, a direct quote from the 22nd Psalm, the effect of that quote would have been to bring to the minds of those around, not just that statement, but what the whole of that Psalm says about him. And here, although Jesus only quotes a phrase from each of the passages, a little phrase from Psalm 110, a little phrase from Daniel 7, but when you take into account what those passages say in their context, and then you plug that into the circumstances of Jesus here in this trial, well, it becomes obvious that there are huge implications about his sonship and his priesthood and his messiahship and kingship in what he says. Let me break a little bit of it down for you. First, when he cites Psalm 110, he cites the first line of the psalm. You can go there if you will. I want to read through the psalm. We sang a paraphrase of it, but let's read it as it's actually written in the scriptures. As he cited the first line of the psalm, this was especially a common method for referencing again the psalm as a whole. Quoting the first line to bring the whole thing into the conversation. And so, what is it? What is it that the psalm is saying? Well, let's read a portion of it, beginning with the beginning, so you guys can answer this question in your own mind. What is it, overall, that the psalm is saying? Because Caiaphas and the clergymen of Israel, they definitely would have known what this psalm said. What is it that it's saying? Psalm 110, beginning in verse 1. The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. Remember, Jesus actually already quoted this back in Mark chapter 12, when he was explaining, you know, the deeper reality about who he is. Because he is David's Lord, and yet the Lord is speaking to him. He's a member of the Godhead. Verse two, the Lord shall send the rod of your strength out of Zion, rule in the midst of your enemies. The rod is a scepter of the king, but it's also comparable to the shepherd's rod because the ancient king was the shepherd of the people he ruled. And this is evidently the same as the rod, which is spoken of in the second Psalm, the rod of iron with which he dashes the nations to pieces. Rule in the midst of your enemies, verse three, your people shall be volunteers in the day of your power. and the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning, you shall have the due of your youth. It's saying that the people of Messiah will be volunteers. They will readily enlist in the army of Christ in order to join with his cause. Verse four, the Lord is sworn and will not relent. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. The Lord is at your right hand. He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath. He's speaking the Messiah. He's calling the Messiah the Lord, David's Lord. He says that the Lord will sit at the right hand of this Lord to execute so-called kings in the day of His wrath. So how would you summarize this psalm? Well, we could say it's a psalm about Messiah, who is raised up by God to the very same level as God. Because in this psalm, God is at His right hand. In other places, He is at the right hand of God. And He reigns in power in the midst of His enemies. That's what it says. His enemies are gathered around Him. and he destroys his enemies to vindicate and glorify himself. And then to top it off, he has made a priest with a priesthood that precedes and eclipses the Levitical priesthood. So that's how we could summarize the psalm. So when Jesus quoted this psalm in his trial, what do you think he was implying before these rulers these political and priestly authorities who were persecuting him, who were his literal bloodthirsty enemies. Keep in mind that when verse 5 says, he shall execute kings in the day of his wrath. The word for kings is melech, which just broadly means rulers, rulers. Every member of the Sanhedrin then that was before him in the Hebrew reckoning was a melech, a ruler. Translated here, king. The psalm says a Messiah will, it says, execute kings in our translation, and the Hebrew literally says he will break them in pieces. And now, don't you think that the Jewish scholars on the Sanhedrin, these are the scholars of the scholars, this is the cream of the crop when it comes to Israel's priestly and aristocratic clergy, don't you think they knew what this psalm said? considering especially that it's one of the most often cited Psalms in Jewish writings at the time. And whether Caiaphas and his comrades realized it or not, Jesus was answering to the charge that he would destroy the temple. He was answering with the scripture. And that's because the temple and the priesthood were one institution. You can't have a functioning temple without a priesthood. Thus, if the priesthood no longer exists, the temple is rendered, at the very least, inoperable. Without the priesthood, the temple becomes desolate. And with this in mind, think about what Jesus is stating about the priesthood when he applies Psalm 110 to himself. He is the Lord, to whom the Lord said, sit at my right hand. Therefore he is the figure in the psalm to whom the Lord said, you are a priest forever. His priesthood then will supplant the priesthood of Caiaphas. His priesthood will supplant the whole Levitical priesthood and render it obsolete. This is what the author to the Hebrews picks up on and explains in detail in the chapters 5 to 7 of the book of Hebrews. Thus, as Jesus was standing there in this trial, in this one little quote to Caiaphas, he was basically telling him that as a king he would destroy him, and as a priest he would supplant him. At least that was what he was implying, whether Caiaphas caught it all or not. It's really remarkable how Jesus could imply so much. And of course, the full realization of Psalm 110 will happen when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead and establishes his never-ending kingdom in all its power and glory. Well, then there's a Daniel 7 passage from which he quotes a phrase. Let's turn there, Daniel chapter 7. Daniel 7 and verses 13 to 14, since he quotes the 13th verse. This is what it says, I was watching in the night visions and behold one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He came to the ancient of days and they brought him near before him. Then to him was given dominion and glory in a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away. In his kingdom, the one which shall not be destroyed. You know, that's so beautiful. It's poetry in Hebrew, and it almost reads like a hymn, even in English. You can almost just sing it, chant it. Now, we've dealt with this passage, right, when we were in the Olivet Discourse. Because, as we saw there, Jesus did quote from this passage as a climactic statement in that context as well. And what we noted there was that this Daniel 7 Son of Man passage is about the Messiah coming in his kingdom. That includes his initial enthronement at the right hand of God. Because the movement of the Messiah, the Son of Man, in this passage is a heavenly movement. And it's even described as a heavenward movement. He's going to and toward the throne of the ancient of days. And there he is coronated. He is crowned. This is a coronation passage about the enthronement of the son of man. But as such, it also includes the consolidation of his kingdom on earth. Because that's what it goes on to state. And that implies if his kingdom is going to be the one without end, his kingdom is going to be supreme That implies the destruction of any contrary kingdom that would oppose him. One thing that we didn't mention, I don't think, when we were in the Olivet Discourse, is how the persecutor of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is destroyed. while the Son of Man is enthroned. This persecutor is described. I'm talking about Daniel 7 now. He's described in verse 27 as blasphemous. He's described in the chapter as the one who persecutes and kills the servants of God. And in the couple of verses before verse 13, which Jesus is citing, This blasphemous persecutor of the Son of Man is destroyed and cast into the burning flame. Verses 8 and 11. And so to put it all in context, if Jesus is Daniel 7's Son of Man, which he is implying, and if Caiaphas is, in his own context, his main persecutor, It's probably implied that Caiaphas is just like the blasphemous enemy of the true servants of God, whose destiny is hell. Caiaphas would know, if he's applying a son of man passage to himself, and I'm the one that's about to kill him, well that's how he's portraying me. So it's not necessarily that Caiaphas is that blasphemous little horn that Daniel describes, but rather it's that Caiaphas is spiritually, conceptually aligned and identified with him in Jesus' use of it. And that does bring up another strand of irony, because it has a correlation with what Caiaphas says about Jesus in the trial. This whole issue, what it brings up is this whole issue of blasphemy and how it relates to what was happening. The little horn was blasphemous. Caiaphas accused Jesus of blasphemy. Caiaphas accused Jesus of that because, well, Jesus just stated that he is the Son of God and Son of Man. But what was happening in reality? Caiaphas was blaspheming the Son of God by denying his deity. and by accusing him of blasphemy for stating who he is, and by denouncing him like he was some kind of scoundrel or criminal. And so when Jesus in his response invokes Daniel 7, 13, and 14, he did it to equate himself with the great eschatological son of man. By claiming this title, Jesus asserts divine authority. So he didn't even necessarily have to say I am as a divine name or divine title to assert divine authority because he's asserting divine authority by identifying himself with Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 figure. And he aligns himself then with a figure who receives eternal dominion and shares the very throne of God. And his words imply not only messianic identity, but also this transcendent heavenly role that anticipates his own vindication and the judgment of his adversaries. And that's a huge part of the Daniel 7 passage in context. That's how ancient Jews would have read Daniel 7. They would have seen the Son of Man figure at large as representative of Israel as a whole. And the whole point of the passage would be the coming of the kingdom of God and the vindication of the Son of Man through the destruction of their adversaries. It's all applied to Jesus himself personally, individually. So let me summarize it for you in the words of, I just love what one writer says about this. Let me indulge in this quote, because I think it's powerful. He says, it isn't that Jesus has, as it were, claimed simply to be divine, though some have seen the simple phrase I am as an echo of the divine name. It is rather that these two biblical texts taken together Psalm 110 and Daniel 7, answer all the questions simultaneously and add to them the assertion that Jesus will be vindicated and exalted to a place at God's right hand. The answer Jesus gives says in a tight packed phrase, yes, I am a true prophet. Yes, what I said about the temple will come true. Yes, I am the Messiah. You will see me vindicated, and my vindication will mean that I share the very throne of Israel's God. He says, at last the masks are off. The secrets are out. The cryptic sayings and parables are left behind. The Son of Man stands before the official ruler of Israel, declaring that God will prove him in the right and the court in the wrong. End of quote. Thus is declared, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Lord who's co-equal with David's Lord, the greater priest whose priesthood is eternal. He has here revealed who he is. He has publicly and openly affirmed and asserted it while he was on trial. Why then? Why? Why did Jesus wait until this moment to openly declare that he is the Christ, the Son of God? Why not declare it openly before? Why wait until the end of his life? Well, we've already discussed this a little bit. By delaying public revelation, Jesus avoided being misconstrued as a political revolutionary, of course. Because if he were, that would have led to a premature arrest and rebellion. But by delaying it, he also assured that everything would happen according to God's timetable, not prematurely. His measured self-revelation in Mark also has a teaching purpose. because he gradually revealed his full identity as his true followers were able to process it. So that's why he didn't give this open public declaration, revelation about himself prior to this time. But more specifically, why this time and place? Well, it was because this was Israel's high court. This was the highest authority internal to the nation. Thus Jesus reserved his fullest, clearest public declaration concerning his true identity for this official formal public trial before the ruling elders of the nation. And the chief priests, the judge, the scribes, the judges, the scribes, the choice Sadducees and Pharisees, They were all present to hear him here, unless he gave this open undeniable testimony about who he is to the people to whom he initially came to offer salvation through himself. He came to his own, and he came indeed by declaring who he is. As no Jew has ever been able to claim that they never heard of Jesus, as if he were some obscure historical figure whose testimony is doubtless or dubious. No Jew has ever been able to claim that Jesus presented himself as a mere rabbi or prophet. They know that he declared that he is the son of God, the very, very co-member of the Godhead. And thus they have been able, ever since this time, they have all been able, to accept or reject him on the basis of his true divine identity. Because his testimony is clear. And that is so redemptively and historically important. And that's why he revealed himself in this place. Why at this time, at these final hours of his earthly life? Why this time? Well he waited to give the full public revelation of himself until this time. Because his true full identity could only be understood in connection with the cross. His confession at this trial secured his condemnation to die on the cross. It's his confession that put the nail in the coffin. Or rather we might say that put the nails in his hands and feet. Mark, the author Mark, he's been big on this so-called messianic secret. The fact that Jesus didn't publicly disclose his identity until this point. But it's now, at this place and time, that the secret of Jesus' messiahship is fully disclosed because it's fully disclosed only in his death and resurrection. And this is what one scholar writes. He said, until the question of the high priest, Jesus has steadfastly silenced all proclamations of his divine sonship. In order to truly understand the meaning of this person, something has been missing all along. The missing element has been the necessity of his suffering. Only in the light of suffering can Jesus openly divulge his identity as God's son. And at this trial, the veil is finally removed. The malevolence which the Jewish authorities have harbored since the beginning of Jesus' ministry is finally exposed. Hence the secret that Jesus protected since the beginning of his ministry is now disclosed. That's why he reveals it here. He reveals his messianic identity in connection with the cross because he can only be truly known and he can only be savingly known as a sin-bearing son of God slain for sinners. To know him, to use the words of Paul, is not just to know him as the Christ, it is to know him as Christ and him crucified. That sums up all the true and saving knowledge of Christ, as him and him crucified. And the crucified part is essential to his mission as the Christ It's also essential to his identity as our Savior. So that's why he says it here. And what's the effect at last of his declaration before Caiaphas? Well, he's assuring Caiaphas and all his detractors that his then present subjection to their influence and dominion and authority was temporary. It was temporary. It was all going to be reversed. And you know, even in the present time, Christ and his teachings might seem to be a minor force amidst the greater contrary forces that hold sway in this world. The powers and influences that dominate this present age They might think they're on top. They might appear to be on top. People might vainly imagine that Christ and his teachings are beneath them. And they might think they're getting away with judging the teachings of Christ as unworthy of their faith or devotion, like this council judged Jesus himself. But soon enough, brothers and sisters, soon enough the tides will be turned. The universal kingship of Christ will be manifested and as he says here, every eye will see him. And all his opponents, all his enemies, all his detractors, all his deniers will be put under his feet. Atheists, blasphemers will be struck with terror when they realize how dumb all their talk against Christ was. Billions of adherents to the world's largest religions will be awestruck and dumbstruck as they realize the truth of Christ's words, that He is the Son of Man coming with the clouds, the consubstantial Son of the living God. Caiaphas and his comrades, all Jews, all Muslims, they will all bow the knee to Christ when they see him at last. Billions of pagans, animists, Hindus, Buddhists, will all be overwhelmed with grief when they instantly understand not only that there is only one true and living God, but that Jesus is his son. And at that great day, just think about it, Ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and Sumerians, and Babylonians will be raised up alongside modern Africans, and Europeans, and Asians, and Americans, and all nations from all time will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power. Professing Christians who claim Christ in name only, but know nothing of true faith in his blood, who call him Lord, but cast his commandments behind their back, will be ashamed of themselves at his coming. And they'll instantly regret the fact that they didn't take the words of Christ more seriously. And we, all people from all time, will be gathered before the throne. All innumerable angels and heavenly hosts are gathered around, observing with the most intense suspense. And Christ will be revealed and revered and glorified as his kingship is displayed and vindicated in confirmation of every word that is written about him in the scriptures. Jesus, he's revealed, he's declared the truth about himself. Do we take his testimony seriously? So everyone will take him seriously then, on that day when every eye fully sees him. But the wise take his testimony seriously now. And for those of us who believe his testimony and receive him as our Messiah, our anointed prophet, priest, and King and Savior, the day when all flesh fully and finally sees the Son of Man seated on the right hand of God, it will be the greatest day of our lives. No prior day compares with the sense of awe and satisfaction that you will have as a believer in Christ when the whole world of men and angels bows before His throne and confesses the exact same testimony that He confessed before Caiaphas, that He is the Son of God and Son of Man. When all see Him and openly acknowledge his sonship as he receives us into his everlasting kingdom and glory to the praise and honor and glory of his great and awesome name. Amen. Oh Lord, do help us. As our brother Jason prayed at the beginning, help us to truly confess the name of Christ and to be bold in that name. May the name of Christ be our refuge. May the name of Christ in our testimony of his name be the rock on which we stand. Keep our feet firmly planted on this rock. The truth about who Jesus is, and do preserve us unto the full coming of your everlasting kingdom. In Jesus' name, amen.