Two Trials
John 18:12-27
In John 20:31 we find the theme of John’s Gospel, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.”
The purpose of John is your salvation. He wrote what he wrote in this Gospel so that you could see Jesus Christ for who He truly is, the Christ, the Son of God. John showed us the great exclamation of John the Baptist when in 1:29 he cried out, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”
What you are supposed to see in this Gospel is that God sent His Son into the world to be the One who would take away the sins of the world. Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is the Lamb of God, and it is He who can remove your sins and give you eternal life.
What we see in chapters 18-21 is the way in which Jesus did this for us. He was arrested, tried, crucified and buried. Then He was raised from the dead. It is His death on the cross that has taken our sins away. Now, if you will believe on His Name, your sins will be taken away and you will have life in His Name.
Last week we saw His arrest. This week we’re turning our attention to his trials. If I were to title this sermon, it would be, “The Two Trials”. John shows us the trial of Jesus before Annas, and at the same time he shows us the trial of Peter by the people around him. John shifts scenes several times back and forth.
Interrogated by Annas (John 18:12-14)
Jesus is arrested, and then He stands trial. When we look at all 4 Gospels we see that there are a total of 6 trials that Jesus goes through: 1) Annas, 2) Caiaphas, 3) Sanhedrin, 4) Pilate, 5) Herod, 6)Pilate. The first 3 – Annas, Caiaphas, Sanhedrin – are the religious trials and they are conducted by the Jews. The last 3 are the civil trials and are conducted by the Romans (Pilate and Herod). The Jews convicted Jesus of blasphemy, the Romans convicted Him of treason (claiming to be a king in opposition to Caesar).
Why so many trials? Why both the Jews and the Romans? The answer is because the Jews convicted Jesus and condemned Him to death but the Romans did not allow them to execute anyone. The Jews needed permission from the Romans to execute one of their criminals. This is why Peter said to the Jews in Acts 2:23, “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.”
Why is this important? What do we gain from this information in John’s Gospel? Remember that John was the last one to write a Gospel. Ninety percent of what he writes is new information that is not in the other 3 Gospels. The Upper Room teachings from chapters 13-16 are not in the other Gospels; the High Priestly Prayer of chapter 17 is not in the other Gospels. That Jesus knocked down the guards when He was arrested was not in the other Gospels. That “Malchus” is the name of the man whose ear was cut off by Peter is not mentioned in the other Gospels. The details of so much in John’s Gospel can only be explained by the fact that John, the author, was an eye witness to all the things he wrote about. His information is not 2nd – hand (1 John 1:1)
Now in our passage today we see another event not mentioned in the other Gospels. Jesus was first sent to Annas to be interrogated. Annas was the former official high priest. His son in law, Caiaphas was the current, official high priest that year. Annas was old, experienced, ambitious, respected and brilliant. He had served as high priest from 6-15AD before being deposed by the Romans.
He had 4 sons and one son in law who all also served as high priest. He was called the high priest, because he was once the high priest, and was in the family of the current high priest. Annas was a powerful man in Israel and was considered by many to be the power behind the throne.
Whether it was because Annas was so respected, or because he was the one who told Judas that night to go get Jesus, or, because the Jews wanted Annas to try and get incriminating evidence out of Jesus, Jesus was brought first to Annas for a pre-trial interrogation.
His son in law, Caiaphas, was the actual, official high priest that year. He was the one who said in chapter 11:49-51 that it would be better for the nation if one man died, then for the nation to perish. He was talking about killing Jesus to avoid any Roman crackdown on the Jews, but, he was actually unwittingly speaking prophecy. Jesus was actually going to die for the nation of Israel. His death wasn’t to save them politically, but, spiritually. His death wasn’t to save them from Rome’s sword but from their own sins.
So it was to Annas that Jesus was brought first. This was the first of 3 religious trials conducted by the Jews. After Annas, Jesus would then be sent to Caiaphas, and then to the Sanhedrin.
The Sanhedrin was the highest court in Israel. When there were capitol cases, there were important features of the procedure for trying the accused. These features were designed to show the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, protect the innocent, and add maximum certainty in guilty verdicts.
First, arguments were heard in favor of acquittals, then, the arguments for a conviction were heard after those.
Second, many members of the Sanhedrin were greatly educated and had their own disciples who studied under them. These disciples were allowed to sit in on court cases and even offer a opinions to the court. However, the disciples were only allowed to offer favorable testimony, they could not offer anything unfavorable.
Thirdly, if someone at first gave a favorable testimony for the defendant, they could not afterwards give an unfavorable testimony.
Fourthly, on the other hand, if someone at first gave an unfavorable testimony, they could turn around afterwards and offer a favorable testimony for the defendant.
Lastly, if the Sanhedrin was to convict, the sentencing could not be pronounced the same day as the trial, but, it had to be pronounced the next day.
Everything in these procedures was set up to minimize the possibility of wrongfully convicting someone, and, on the other hand, maximize the certainty of guilt in the case of a conviction. The whole procedure was to make sure no one who was innocent was sentenced to death while those who were sentenced to death it was sure that they deserved it. The care for protecting the innocent and the wrongfully accused was to avoid the event where an innocent man was put to death. In this way, the process made it hard to deny someone’s guilt if they truly were guilty, as the evidence would show forth, while at the same time making it easy to see the innocence of someone when the demand for evidence went unmet.
Annas, afterwards would send Jesus to his son in law Caiaphas.
Inside the Courtyard (John 18:15-18)
After Jesus was arrested, the disciples all ran away. Two of them turned around and followed Jesus as He was led away. One is Peter, and, the other is presumed to be John, the author. Whenever John is referring to himself in his Gospel he refers to himself as: “another disciple” (18:15; 20:2), or, as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:20). He doesn’t ever refer to himself by name.
This “other disciple” seems to be around Peter a lot. Remember Peter and John were part of Jesus’ inner circle of 3 so they would have been through a lot together without the other disciples, and, the attention to detail in these situations with Peter means that the author had a lot of time with Peter. There are several scenarios where Peter shows up with this “other disciple” – (sitting next to each other in the Upper Room, Praying with Jesus in Gethsemene, following Jesus after He’s arrested, running to see the empty tomb, having a side conversation with Jesus at the end of the Gospel).
If this is John, then we learn here that John was known by the high priest. He was probably known by him and many in the family. We’re not told how John knows the high priest, but, knowing him gave him immediate, unhindered access into the high priests house. Peter was not known by the high priest and so he had to wait outside. While he was waiting outside, John came back with permission to let Peter in. John got Peter in.
This is a picture of salvation. Salvation is not what you know, it is who you know. “And this is eternal life: That they may know you, the one true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”. Getting “in” to heaven is because Jesus Christ came out of heaven to get you and bring you in. To have access, you have to know someone who has access. John identified with Peter and told the girl at the door, “He’s with me”, and, Peter identified with John and said, “I’m with him”. If someone asked Peter who are you and why are you here he would say “I’m with him”. Our salvation is because we point to Christ and say, “I’m with Him.”
But, unfortunately, while Peter was ready to identify with John, as we’re seeing in this passage, Peter wasn’t going to identify with Jesus. Let me just point something out here – an application point for us. Peter came in with John, but, then they separate. Verse 18 says that it was Peter – only Peter – that was standing around the fire with the guards and the Jewish officials. John was somewhere else. I bet John was over by Jesus, which would indicate why he knows what Jesus said and that he saw the guard slap Jesus. John gets Peter in, and, then he doesn’t stay with John and go to Jesus, but, instead he goes over to the enemies of Jesus.
One author I read said, “Peter now mingled with the enemies of his Lord and tried to conceal his identity. Like many other disciples (today), he warmed himself at this world’s fire” While Jesus was under fire, Peter was warming himself by the fire. Rather than standing with Jesus, Peter was standing with the enemies of Jesus. Rather than identifying himself with Christ, he concealed his relationship with Christ
How many Christians get in with Jesus but they don’t stay with Him? How many get through the door of salvation but they turn aside and go over to the comforts of the world and hang out with the enemies of Christ and be among those who hate Christ?
Illegal Interrogation (John 18:19-23)
There wasn’t one aspect of these trials of Jesus that weren’t illegal. The whole thing was illegal at every point. The trials of Jesus were in total violation of the judicial procedure according to Jewish law.
First, Jesus was condemned before He had a trial (John 7:50-51; 11:53).
Second, Jesus was arrested and stood two trials in private at night (Annas and Caiaphas). No trial was to take place at night, and, trials were to take place in public.
Third, Jesus could not be arrested and interrogated first, before any witnesses were produced. Every case must be built on the testimony of witnesses. The witnesses were actually supposed to go to the Courts with the case. The Court was not supposed go accuse and then look for witnesses.
Fourth, the Courts were not allowed to try and get Jesus to say something that they might use against Him. Annas was breaking the law by interrogating Jesus because the evidence against Jesus was to be built on the testimony of witnesses.
Fifthly, no one who has not been convicted could be abused. The guard struck Jesus in verse 22.
Sixthly, the sentencing to convict Jesus on the same day as His trial was illegal. Acquittal’s could be pronounced the same day, but, convictions had to be pronounced the day after the trial. Jesus was condemned, tried, sentenced, then crucified and dead within a matter of 12 hours.
The Sanhedrin was like the Supreme Court in Israel. This group of men ruled the nations religious and civil affairs, because their religion dictated their civil life as shown in the OT and the traditions of the elders. It was made up of 70 men. These men had different affiliations: High Priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. Each member was appointed for life and had to be a full-blooded Jew. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15) were members of the Sanhedrin.
Notice again that Jesus protects Peter and his disciples. He doesn’t answer any questions about them. Even though he hears everything Peter is saying, Jesus does not call Peter over to be His witness before Annas.
Jesus was talking about the guards when He says “ask those who heard me”. Possibly the guards standing there.
John 18:24-27
We have to ask ourselves “Is there anything we can learn about what led to Peter’s denial of Christ?” Ryrie lists a 6 step sequence from Mark 14. It shows us what Peter did, and what we can do, to make us vulnerable. First, Peter was overconfident (v 29, 31). Second, Peter neglected prayer (37, 40-41). Third, he did not listen to Christ (v 47). Fourth, he was associating with the wrong crowd (v54). Fifth, he was reverting to old habits (v 71). Lastly, Peter outright denied Christ (v 71).
Peter’s problem was that he was not prepared. Jesus told him earlier that Satan was coming to sift him. He wasn’t prepared. Years later Peter would write to other Christians everywhere the lesson he painfully learned. In 1 Peter 3:15 he says, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” I think Peter was thinking of this very night when he wrote those words. This was the night that he was not prepared to answer those who asked him.
How many of us are not prepared? How many of us are warming ourselves by the fires of this world - seeking comfort from this world? How many of us are not standing with Christ and instead are somewhere else standing around with the world? How many of us do not take the Biblical command to be sober and alert and prayerful seriously and instead we’re asleep rather than on our knees? How many of us, like Peter, are not taking seriously the reality and danger of Satan’s existence and attacks? Peter didn’t listen to Jesus when He warned him of Satan’s imminent attack on him. But, Peter, learns his lesson and later writes again in 1 Peter 5:8, “Be self controlled and alert.” This is a call to be prayerfull, not prayerless. “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”
Sometimes that roaring lion can look like a little harmless girl. In verse 17 the girl attending the door asks Peter if he is a disciple of Jesus too. Peter panics. I think without even thinking Peter just blurted out, “No I am not.” I read one comment on this that said, “slave girls were the least important people imaginable at that time.” This little nobody slave girl who was a nobody to everyone in that place reduced Peter to a scaredy-cat. When she asked Peter that question Peter acted like she was Goliath. A little mouse seemed like a roaring lion.
When we’re afraid to stand with Christ we will live in fear all the time as Christians. We will always be afraid of being mocked or rejected or misunderstood or suffer. But we need to wake up to the fact that this is what Christ endured, what the Apostles endured, what believers down through the centuries have endured and believers even to this day are enduring for their faith in Christ.
We live in a world that hates Christ and is always putting Him on trial by putting Christians on trial. And that is the problem Peter had, and that is the problem many Christians today have: they don’t want to be put on trial with Jesus. They don’t want to be identified with Him because there is so much hatred towards Him. Staying married, immoral conversations and jokes,
Peter is known for being a man of action. He is not one to sit around and talk for very long. He comes across as decisive, get it done and give it 110%. He doesn’t seem to do anything half-way. Peter, like many of us today, lacked a filter between his brain and his mouth. He is the guy who saw Jesus on the water and then just walked out on the water too. He is the guy who
While Jesus was on trial, Peter would not stand with Him. He got as far away from Jesus as he could when Jesus was being condemned. He didn’t want anything to do with what Jesus was going through. When the world came down on Jesus, Peter didn’t want to be near Him. He didn’t want to be identified with Him knowing that he would be treated the same way.
When Peter denied Jesus for the 3rd time, the rooster crowed. And in the other Gospels it says that Jesus looked at Peter at that moment, and Peter looked at Jesus at that moment. Jesus could hear every word of Peter’s (Annas probably was jabbing Jesus about his disciples deserting Him too). And Peter at that moment had the sword of conviction run straight through his heart. And the other Gospels say that Peter went out of the courtyard and wept bitterly.
Do you know why Peter wept bitterly? Yes, it was because he felt guilty for denying Christ. But why “bitterly”? Because Peter was weak and failed where he was most strong – his loyalty.
Peter’s greatest strength, I think, was his loyalty (John 6:68 and 18:10). I think Peter considered his greatest strength to be loyalty. He probably wouldn’t tell you that he was the smartest, the most athletic, the most personable disciple in the group. But, he was loyal: “I will follow you even unto death” Peter told Jesus. He wanted to be with Christ no matter what.
He failed to be loyal to the One he loved the most and I will tell you that for Peter the pain his shame for betraying Christ was far worse than the pain he would suffer later in life of being crucified upside down.
This denial by Peter is a display of fear that contrasts with his attack on Malchus in verse 10. Remember there were hundreds of soldiers against Jesus, Peter and the other disciples. They didn’t stand a chance, but, Peter draws a sword and swipes a guys ear right off apparently not giving a second thought to the losing battle he is starting.
What’s the difference between Peter in verse 10 and Peter in verse 25-27? I think it is this: many people, like Peter, are ready to go down fighting when they are wronged. But when Jesus told Peter to put his sword away, Peter didn’t know what to do then. He could not understand any other response to persecution. He could not understand submitting to unjust suffering.
And neither do many of us. How quickly we draw our swords and how reluctant to put them away. How fierce we are to justify and defend ourselves, to protect ourselves, to save ourselves from harm or injury. How quick we are to declare our right to do so.
But again, Peter says in 1 Peter 2:23, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to Him who judges justly.” Peter saw that in Christ, and, Peter learned the lesson so others could see it in him. In Acts 5:41 it says that Peter and the other apostles “left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.” He learned it himself and he taught it to others. Turn to 1 Peter 4:12-16, which says ……….
John 18:12-27
In John 20:31 we find the theme of John’s Gospel, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.”
The purpose of John is your salvation. He wrote what he wrote in this Gospel so that you could see Jesus Christ for who He truly is, the Christ, the Son of God. John showed us the great exclamation of John the Baptist when in 1:29 he cried out, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”
What you are supposed to see in this Gospel is that God sent His Son into the world to be the One who would take away the sins of the world. Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is the Lamb of God, and it is He who can remove your sins and give you eternal life.
What we see in chapters 18-21 is the way in which Jesus did this for us. He was arrested, tried, crucified and buried. Then He was raised from the dead. It is His death on the cross that has taken our sins away. Now, if you will believe on His Name, your sins will be taken away and you will have life in His Name.
Last week we saw His arrest. This week we’re turning our attention to his trials. If I were to title this sermon, it would be, “The Two Trials”. John shows us the trial of Jesus before Annas, and at the same time he shows us the trial of Peter by the people around him. John shifts scenes several times back and forth.
Interrogated by Annas (John 18:12-14)
Jesus is arrested, and then He stands trial. When we look at all 4 Gospels we see that there are a total of 6 trials that Jesus goes through: 1) Annas, 2) Caiaphas, 3) Sanhedrin, 4) Pilate, 5) Herod, 6)Pilate. The first 3 – Annas, Caiaphas, Sanhedrin – are the religious trials and they are conducted by the Jews. The last 3 are the civil trials and are conducted by the Romans (Pilate and Herod). The Jews convicted Jesus of blasphemy, the Romans convicted Him of treason (claiming to be a king in opposition to Caesar).
Why so many trials? Why both the Jews and the Romans? The answer is because the Jews convicted Jesus and condemned Him to death but the Romans did not allow them to execute anyone. The Jews needed permission from the Romans to execute one of their criminals. This is why Peter said to the Jews in Acts 2:23, “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.”
Why is this important? What do we gain from this information in John’s Gospel? Remember that John was the last one to write a Gospel. Ninety percent of what he writes is new information that is not in the other 3 Gospels. The Upper Room teachings from chapters 13-16 are not in the other Gospels; the High Priestly Prayer of chapter 17 is not in the other Gospels. That Jesus knocked down the guards when He was arrested was not in the other Gospels. That “Malchus” is the name of the man whose ear was cut off by Peter is not mentioned in the other Gospels. The details of so much in John’s Gospel can only be explained by the fact that John, the author, was an eye witness to all the things he wrote about. His information is not 2nd – hand (1 John 1:1)
Now in our passage today we see another event not mentioned in the other Gospels. Jesus was first sent to Annas to be interrogated. Annas was the former official high priest. His son in law, Caiaphas was the current, official high priest that year. Annas was old, experienced, ambitious, respected and brilliant. He had served as high priest from 6-15AD before being deposed by the Romans.
He had 4 sons and one son in law who all also served as high priest. He was called the high priest, because he was once the high priest, and was in the family of the current high priest. Annas was a powerful man in Israel and was considered by many to be the power behind the throne.
Whether it was because Annas was so respected, or because he was the one who told Judas that night to go get Jesus, or, because the Jews wanted Annas to try and get incriminating evidence out of Jesus, Jesus was brought first to Annas for a pre-trial interrogation.
His son in law, Caiaphas, was the actual, official high priest that year. He was the one who said in chapter 11:49-51 that it would be better for the nation if one man died, then for the nation to perish. He was talking about killing Jesus to avoid any Roman crackdown on the Jews, but, he was actually unwittingly speaking prophecy. Jesus was actually going to die for the nation of Israel. His death wasn’t to save them politically, but, spiritually. His death wasn’t to save them from Rome’s sword but from their own sins.
So it was to Annas that Jesus was brought first. This was the first of 3 religious trials conducted by the Jews. After Annas, Jesus would then be sent to Caiaphas, and then to the Sanhedrin.
The Sanhedrin was the highest court in Israel. When there were capitol cases, there were important features of the procedure for trying the accused. These features were designed to show the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, protect the innocent, and add maximum certainty in guilty verdicts.
First, arguments were heard in favor of acquittals, then, the arguments for a conviction were heard after those.
Second, many members of the Sanhedrin were greatly educated and had their own disciples who studied under them. These disciples were allowed to sit in on court cases and even offer a opinions to the court. However, the disciples were only allowed to offer favorable testimony, they could not offer anything unfavorable.
Thirdly, if someone at first gave a favorable testimony for the defendant, they could not afterwards give an unfavorable testimony.
Fourthly, on the other hand, if someone at first gave an unfavorable testimony, they could turn around afterwards and offer a favorable testimony for the defendant.
Lastly, if the Sanhedrin was to convict, the sentencing could not be pronounced the same day as the trial, but, it had to be pronounced the next day.
Everything in these procedures was set up to minimize the possibility of wrongfully convicting someone, and, on the other hand, maximize the certainty of guilt in the case of a conviction. The whole procedure was to make sure no one who was innocent was sentenced to death while those who were sentenced to death it was sure that they deserved it. The care for protecting the innocent and the wrongfully accused was to avoid the event where an innocent man was put to death. In this way, the process made it hard to deny someone’s guilt if they truly were guilty, as the evidence would show forth, while at the same time making it easy to see the innocence of someone when the demand for evidence went unmet.
Annas, afterwards would send Jesus to his son in law Caiaphas.
Inside the Courtyard (John 18:15-18)
After Jesus was arrested, the disciples all ran away. Two of them turned around and followed Jesus as He was led away. One is Peter, and, the other is presumed to be John, the author. Whenever John is referring to himself in his Gospel he refers to himself as: “another disciple” (18:15; 20:2), or, as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:20). He doesn’t ever refer to himself by name.
This “other disciple” seems to be around Peter a lot. Remember Peter and John were part of Jesus’ inner circle of 3 so they would have been through a lot together without the other disciples, and, the attention to detail in these situations with Peter means that the author had a lot of time with Peter. There are several scenarios where Peter shows up with this “other disciple” – (sitting next to each other in the Upper Room, Praying with Jesus in Gethsemene, following Jesus after He’s arrested, running to see the empty tomb, having a side conversation with Jesus at the end of the Gospel).
If this is John, then we learn here that John was known by the high priest. He was probably known by him and many in the family. We’re not told how John knows the high priest, but, knowing him gave him immediate, unhindered access into the high priests house. Peter was not known by the high priest and so he had to wait outside. While he was waiting outside, John came back with permission to let Peter in. John got Peter in.
This is a picture of salvation. Salvation is not what you know, it is who you know. “And this is eternal life: That they may know you, the one true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”. Getting “in” to heaven is because Jesus Christ came out of heaven to get you and bring you in. To have access, you have to know someone who has access. John identified with Peter and told the girl at the door, “He’s with me”, and, Peter identified with John and said, “I’m with him”. If someone asked Peter who are you and why are you here he would say “I’m with him”. Our salvation is because we point to Christ and say, “I’m with Him.”
But, unfortunately, while Peter was ready to identify with John, as we’re seeing in this passage, Peter wasn’t going to identify with Jesus. Let me just point something out here – an application point for us. Peter came in with John, but, then they separate. Verse 18 says that it was Peter – only Peter – that was standing around the fire with the guards and the Jewish officials. John was somewhere else. I bet John was over by Jesus, which would indicate why he knows what Jesus said and that he saw the guard slap Jesus. John gets Peter in, and, then he doesn’t stay with John and go to Jesus, but, instead he goes over to the enemies of Jesus.
One author I read said, “Peter now mingled with the enemies of his Lord and tried to conceal his identity. Like many other disciples (today), he warmed himself at this world’s fire” While Jesus was under fire, Peter was warming himself by the fire. Rather than standing with Jesus, Peter was standing with the enemies of Jesus. Rather than identifying himself with Christ, he concealed his relationship with Christ
How many Christians get in with Jesus but they don’t stay with Him? How many get through the door of salvation but they turn aside and go over to the comforts of the world and hang out with the enemies of Christ and be among those who hate Christ?
Illegal Interrogation (John 18:19-23)
There wasn’t one aspect of these trials of Jesus that weren’t illegal. The whole thing was illegal at every point. The trials of Jesus were in total violation of the judicial procedure according to Jewish law.
First, Jesus was condemned before He had a trial (John 7:50-51; 11:53).
Second, Jesus was arrested and stood two trials in private at night (Annas and Caiaphas). No trial was to take place at night, and, trials were to take place in public.
Third, Jesus could not be arrested and interrogated first, before any witnesses were produced. Every case must be built on the testimony of witnesses. The witnesses were actually supposed to go to the Courts with the case. The Court was not supposed go accuse and then look for witnesses.
Fourth, the Courts were not allowed to try and get Jesus to say something that they might use against Him. Annas was breaking the law by interrogating Jesus because the evidence against Jesus was to be built on the testimony of witnesses.
Fifthly, no one who has not been convicted could be abused. The guard struck Jesus in verse 22.
Sixthly, the sentencing to convict Jesus on the same day as His trial was illegal. Acquittal’s could be pronounced the same day, but, convictions had to be pronounced the day after the trial. Jesus was condemned, tried, sentenced, then crucified and dead within a matter of 12 hours.
The Sanhedrin was like the Supreme Court in Israel. This group of men ruled the nations religious and civil affairs, because their religion dictated their civil life as shown in the OT and the traditions of the elders. It was made up of 70 men. These men had different affiliations: High Priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. Each member was appointed for life and had to be a full-blooded Jew. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15) were members of the Sanhedrin.
Notice again that Jesus protects Peter and his disciples. He doesn’t answer any questions about them. Even though he hears everything Peter is saying, Jesus does not call Peter over to be His witness before Annas.
Jesus was talking about the guards when He says “ask those who heard me”. Possibly the guards standing there.
John 18:24-27
We have to ask ourselves “Is there anything we can learn about what led to Peter’s denial of Christ?” Ryrie lists a 6 step sequence from Mark 14. It shows us what Peter did, and what we can do, to make us vulnerable. First, Peter was overconfident (v 29, 31). Second, Peter neglected prayer (37, 40-41). Third, he did not listen to Christ (v 47). Fourth, he was associating with the wrong crowd (v54). Fifth, he was reverting to old habits (v 71). Lastly, Peter outright denied Christ (v 71).
Peter’s problem was that he was not prepared. Jesus told him earlier that Satan was coming to sift him. He wasn’t prepared. Years later Peter would write to other Christians everywhere the lesson he painfully learned. In 1 Peter 3:15 he says, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” I think Peter was thinking of this very night when he wrote those words. This was the night that he was not prepared to answer those who asked him.
How many of us are not prepared? How many of us are warming ourselves by the fires of this world - seeking comfort from this world? How many of us are not standing with Christ and instead are somewhere else standing around with the world? How many of us do not take the Biblical command to be sober and alert and prayerful seriously and instead we’re asleep rather than on our knees? How many of us, like Peter, are not taking seriously the reality and danger of Satan’s existence and attacks? Peter didn’t listen to Jesus when He warned him of Satan’s imminent attack on him. But, Peter, learns his lesson and later writes again in 1 Peter 5:8, “Be self controlled and alert.” This is a call to be prayerfull, not prayerless. “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”
Sometimes that roaring lion can look like a little harmless girl. In verse 17 the girl attending the door asks Peter if he is a disciple of Jesus too. Peter panics. I think without even thinking Peter just blurted out, “No I am not.” I read one comment on this that said, “slave girls were the least important people imaginable at that time.” This little nobody slave girl who was a nobody to everyone in that place reduced Peter to a scaredy-cat. When she asked Peter that question Peter acted like she was Goliath. A little mouse seemed like a roaring lion.
When we’re afraid to stand with Christ we will live in fear all the time as Christians. We will always be afraid of being mocked or rejected or misunderstood or suffer. But we need to wake up to the fact that this is what Christ endured, what the Apostles endured, what believers down through the centuries have endured and believers even to this day are enduring for their faith in Christ.
We live in a world that hates Christ and is always putting Him on trial by putting Christians on trial. And that is the problem Peter had, and that is the problem many Christians today have: they don’t want to be put on trial with Jesus. They don’t want to be identified with Him because there is so much hatred towards Him. Staying married, immoral conversations and jokes,
Peter is known for being a man of action. He is not one to sit around and talk for very long. He comes across as decisive, get it done and give it 110%. He doesn’t seem to do anything half-way. Peter, like many of us today, lacked a filter between his brain and his mouth. He is the guy who saw Jesus on the water and then just walked out on the water too. He is the guy who
While Jesus was on trial, Peter would not stand with Him. He got as far away from Jesus as he could when Jesus was being condemned. He didn’t want anything to do with what Jesus was going through. When the world came down on Jesus, Peter didn’t want to be near Him. He didn’t want to be identified with Him knowing that he would be treated the same way.
When Peter denied Jesus for the 3rd time, the rooster crowed. And in the other Gospels it says that Jesus looked at Peter at that moment, and Peter looked at Jesus at that moment. Jesus could hear every word of Peter’s (Annas probably was jabbing Jesus about his disciples deserting Him too). And Peter at that moment had the sword of conviction run straight through his heart. And the other Gospels say that Peter went out of the courtyard and wept bitterly.
Do you know why Peter wept bitterly? Yes, it was because he felt guilty for denying Christ. But why “bitterly”? Because Peter was weak and failed where he was most strong – his loyalty.
Peter’s greatest strength, I think, was his loyalty (John 6:68 and 18:10). I think Peter considered his greatest strength to be loyalty. He probably wouldn’t tell you that he was the smartest, the most athletic, the most personable disciple in the group. But, he was loyal: “I will follow you even unto death” Peter told Jesus. He wanted to be with Christ no matter what.
He failed to be loyal to the One he loved the most and I will tell you that for Peter the pain his shame for betraying Christ was far worse than the pain he would suffer later in life of being crucified upside down.
This denial by Peter is a display of fear that contrasts with his attack on Malchus in verse 10. Remember there were hundreds of soldiers against Jesus, Peter and the other disciples. They didn’t stand a chance, but, Peter draws a sword and swipes a guys ear right off apparently not giving a second thought to the losing battle he is starting.
What’s the difference between Peter in verse 10 and Peter in verse 25-27? I think it is this: many people, like Peter, are ready to go down fighting when they are wronged. But when Jesus told Peter to put his sword away, Peter didn’t know what to do then. He could not understand any other response to persecution. He could not understand submitting to unjust suffering.
And neither do many of us. How quickly we draw our swords and how reluctant to put them away. How fierce we are to justify and defend ourselves, to protect ourselves, to save ourselves from harm or injury. How quick we are to declare our right to do so.
But again, Peter says in 1 Peter 2:23, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to Him who judges justly.” Peter saw that in Christ, and, Peter learned the lesson so others could see it in him. In Acts 5:41 it says that Peter and the other apostles “left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.” He learned it himself and he taught it to others. Turn to 1 Peter 4:12-16, which says ……….
Comments
Post a Comment