Or, Pre-Trial and Three Denials
Scripture: John 18:12-27
Date: May 11, 2014
Speaker: Sean Higgins
Christians want what’s fair. Some non-believers do, too, but they have no consistent basis for wanting what’s fair, let alone for defining what’s fair. Believers worship the God of justice and righteousness. He defines fair, He cares about fair, He judges with equity, always. God Himself also suffered the greatest injustice in human history.
Christians also testify to the truth. Some non-believers do, too, but at best they borrow truth by common grace, and more often bend truth to serve their own purposes. Believers worship the God of truth and light. He reveals truth, He upholds truth, He cannot deny Himself because He is truth. God Himself also suffered some of the most personal lies in human history.
Last Lord’s day John brought us down the stairs of the upper room across the gully east of Jerusalem to the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:1-11). John gave his account of the betrayal of Judas, the arrest by Jewish and Roman forces, and the authority that Jesus exerted at every step of the process. Jesus met His traitor, Jesus addressed His enemies, Jesus protected His sheep, and He obeyed His Father. Jesus needed to freely offer Himself according to the ordained plan.
John twists together the next two events on Thursday night to show how distorted things had become. One of the events is only recorded by John and not by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. The other event is told by every Gospel writer. The first event is a pre-trial warm-up with Jesus before Annas. The other is Peter’s denial times three. Our Lord was unfairly judged and cowardly denied. John takes us back and forth as Jesus moves toward the cross. Things are our of order in verses 12-27.
We know from the first three accounts that Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane and then taken to the Sanhedrin for His first trial. John doesn’t include that court appearance in his account, but he does tell us about a stop on the way.
So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people. (John 18:12–14, ESV)
The band or “cohort” of Roman soldiers and their captain led the way, but the officers of the Jews decided the way. First they led him to Annas , not to Herod or Pilate. The gas in the engine of Jesus’ arrest was high octane religion. The Jews wanted Him dead and used the Romans due to the political context as well as their own cowardice. Rome ruled Israel, though Caesar did allow Israel some small measure of self-governing. That they took Jesus to Annas first shows who wanted His arrest.
They led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Ciaphas, who was the high-priest that year . Annas will be called the high priest in verses 19 and 22, though Ciaphas is called the high priest in verses 13 and 24. Annas had been the high priest from AD 6 to 15, but a Roman, Valerius Gratus (the governor before Pilate), replaced him with one of Annas’ sons in AD 15, a son who was replaced by son-in-law, Ciaphas, in AD 18.
According to the Jewish law (Numbers 32:25), the office of high priest was a lifetime appointment. Even though Annas had been removed, he kept the title (sort of like we refer to former Presidents as President) and he continued to exert influence, especially since five sons (or son-in-law) followed in his chair.
This is all fine information, but why separate it from the paragraph that begins in verse 19? Why not keep the information about the meeting with Annas and the reports about the denials of Peter together? One reason is that it gets us to the place where Peter makes his denial: in Annas’ courtyard. Now we know why Peter went there. But verse 14 also signals trouble. It was Ciaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people .
John already told us that in 11:49-53. Note the conclusion there: “So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.” The trial before the Sanhedrin that Ciaphas led was fixed, the court prejudiced, the evidence invented. The soldiers brought Jesus to Annas to buy time to wake and gather at least a quorum of the court and to see if Annas could intimidate Jesus into condemning Himself. Annas was in on the fix. The soldiers brought Jesus to Annas so that Annas could turn Him or turn up something on Him.
Peter foolishly swung a sword at a man’s neck in defense of Jesus moments ago. He hadn’t filled his foolish quota for the night.
Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in. The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. (John 18:15–18, ESV)
Simon Peter followed Jesus because he couldn’t not. We might appreciate his lack of self-awareness until we see his self-protection. Peter went with another disciple who was known to the high priest . The only argument that this disciple is not John is guesswork. Men assume that a Galilean fisherman could not have been known to such a powerful politician. But why not? Evidence that this is John includes the fact that John gladly names names except for his own (for example, “the beloved disciple”), that the details he provides fit well with an eyewitness’ account (a “charcoal fire”), and that he and Peter were together a number of times without the other disciples (running to the tomb).
However it happened, John, the writer of this gospel account, was known so that he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest . No one stopped him because they knew him. Not so for Peter: but Peter stood outside at the door . He had no backstage pass.
So (John)…went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in . John vouched for Peter and got him through security. It would have been better for Peter if he hadn’t.
The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” There was a lady bouncer at the door, maybe her name was Xena.
The Greek language has two ways to form a question, one that expects a positive reply, one that expresses a negative. This is phrased to expect a negative. In other words, she knows that John is a disciple ( you also ), but figures Peter knows John for another reason. She is not accusing Peter or being hostile toward him.
Yet he says, I am not .
He had boasted that he would prove to be a valiant champion, and able to meet death with firmness; and now, at the voice of a single maid, and that voice unaccompanied by threatening, he is confounded and throws down his arms. (Calvin, 199)
This one who boasted so strongly that he would follow Jesus to death cannot affirm his commitment in a word to one un-antagonistic woman. And now he can’t turn back. That would undermine what he just answered. So he puts himself among a crowd of even less friendlies. Now the servants and the officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself . But it only gets darker and colder for Peter.
Annas had a job to do. He failed.
The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. (John 18:19–24, ESV)
Usually the law precluded middle of the night, spur-of-the moment trials, except in the case of urgent matters. This was urgent because of a potential mass reaction among the people. It was also urgent because if they wanted to put Jesus to death, then it had to be done before Sabbath started the following evening.
Annas threw two lures into the water: was Jesus gathering a group of rebels against Israel and was Jesus teaching heresy against Israel’s Law? If Annas could prove Jesus’ mutinous intentions or His unorthodox doctrine, that would be something for the Sanhedrin to start with.
Jesus did not directly answer about His disciples, but in answering about His message He answered about His followers. If He spoke the truth, then any adherents to His teaching shouldn’t be considered to be trouble. Besides, it was all out in the open anyway. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple where Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” We might say that Jesus’ work was already indexed by Google. Do a search and the results with top the first page of results. Wiretaps and illegal seizures by the NSA aren’t necessary.
There are at least two reasons for this reply. First, Annas wasn’t actually asking for information. While it is true that Jesus had private conversations with His closest disciples, His message was the same. He didn’t have a public platform different than His closed-door conversations. In private He explained more, but He didn’t explain different. Jesus didn’t minister in secret, unlike Annas who at the very moment was attempt to hide.
Second, Annas wasn’t actually following following legal protocol. The late-night meeting and the procedure was out of order. This was not the formal trial even though Annas must have wanted to make it seem legitimate. And legally, the defendant did not have to answer. Witnesses had to answer for or against the defendant. That Annas was asking Jesus directly was out of order.
Here they are, in a private, back room, probably between 1-3 AM, having arrested a man who was sold to them, who has done nothing against the law or government. Should we be surprised that Annas isn’t following the rules? They planned to murder Him. A fair trial wasn’t on their radar.
After Jesus’ reply, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand . Smacking a prisoner was also against the law. This minion no doubt saw Annas frustrated and tried to score some points with his boss. Jesus also pointed out that this was out of order. They got nowhere and so sent Jesus off.
On the way out of Annas (and Ciaphas’) house, Jesus was taken by Peter in the courtyard.
Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed. (John 18:25–27, ESV)
Picking up where we left Peter, he is standing with a number of servants and officers. Either because he was unfamiliar to them, or because someone overheard the servant girl, they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” Peter denied it and said (again), “I am not.” One lie requires another when you’re caught.
One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” Around the fire, maybe only an hour or two after Gethsemane, dealing with a relative of Malchus, where could Peter hide? He couldn’t, so he lied. He had already denied it two times. Was he now going to steer the car back up onto the cliff? Peter again denied it. John is gracious in what he omits, knowning that the other writers describe Peter’ cursing (see Mark 14:71).
And at once a rooster crowed . It was at this time that Peter remembered Jesus’ warning in John 13:38. And Jesus caught Peter’s eye also (Luke 22:61). It would take a while for Peter to recover from so serious a collapse. A good deal of John 21 addresses Jesus bring Peter back into humble confidence to fulfill his calling. For now, around 3 AM, all Jesus’ disciples had defected.
Jesus was not judged fairly. If He had been, we would still be in our sin. Either He was guilty, so unable to be a innocent sacrifice, or, He was not found not guilty, so He wouldn’t have been killed, so He wouldn’t be a sacrifice at all. An illegal trial is part of our salvation story.
Being treated unfairly is also part of our story as we follow Jesus. He left us an example to follow in His steps as Peter wrote about in his first letter. We should not expect better treatment than our Lord, and certainly not if we’re going to be like our Lord.
Can’t we wait NOT knowing the end? It will all come together. Joseph waited in prison for years. Jesus endured for hours. We know the end of the story. And all things will come together from Him and through Him and to Him for us as well.
Jesus went it alone. He had no man to depend on for support, just His Father. We have Him who understands. We have Him who shows grace even to those of His sheep who run away from Him.