The Gospel of John: The Jewish trial of Jesus

And then he'll pray for us. Second Peter chapter 1,

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of God and Savior Jesus Christ, may grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our

Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue and virtue with knowledge and knowledge with self -control and self -control with steadfastness and steadfastness with godliness and godliness with brotherly affection and brotherly affection with love.

For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our

Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to conform your calling and election, and if you practice these qualities, you will never fall.

For in this way, there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore, I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.

I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will soon be, as our

Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me, and I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the

Father, and the voice was born to him by the majestic glory, this is my beloved

Son, with whom I am well pleased. We ourselves heard this very voice born from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

And we have the prophetic word made more fully confirmed, to which you would do well to pay attention, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this, first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

For no prophecy was ever pronounced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the

Holy Spirit. Let's pray. Our Father, we thank you so much for the tremendous blessings that are found in Christ Jesus.

We thank you, Lord, that you have given us everything that we possibly need for life and godliness, everything we need to live lives that are pleasing to you.

All of these tremendous blessings, Lord, are found in Christ Jesus, and Lord, we thank you for that.

We thank you that you have chosen us, that you have redeemed us, that you have placed us in your kingdom, that you have placed us in your family and adopted us as sons and daughters.

We thank you for the Spirit, Lord, that seals us, that is our guarantee for the day of salvation.

And Lord, these are tremendous blessings, and we pray, Lord, that we would live in them, that we would remember these things daily.

When difficulties come and when persecutions come, when apathy comes, Lord, point us to your promises, point us to the

Lord Jesus Christ. And Lord, now as we continue our worship through the sermon, we pray that we would be mindful of what the word of God states.

We pray that we would be focused, that we would apply these truths to our lives, that we would live them out daily.

We pray, Lord, for wisdom, we pray for guidance, and we pray for your mercy upon us. Thank you,

Lord. In Jesus' name, amen. Well, let's turn to John 18, please.

I was told last week it was rather chilly in here. Is it cold this morning? Wave your hand if you're cold.

There are a few. Raymond, maybe if you could turn off the A .C., that would be great, that would be wonderful.

And in fact, if you turn on the fans on a low speed, it'll bring some of that warm air down off the ceiling, make people a little more comfortable.

I get up here, I'm totally unmindful of it, I don't realize whether it's cold or warm or whatever.

All right, John 18. We now enter into addressing the trials of our

Lord Jesus. We read in John 18, 12, and following the arrest of Jesus, that he was bound and then taken to be tried before the religious and civil authorities, which we have in the next few chapters of John's Gospel.

Now before us today in verses 12 through 29, we have recorded for us

Jesus being brought before Annas, who is the father -in -law of Caiaphas, Caiaphas who's described as the high priest that year.

And in this account, we also read of Peter's lapse of faith in that he denied having known

Jesus. And so here's the passage that we want to give attention to today.

And as we read, take notice that there are four sections in this, and in order to identify these four distinct sections,

I put a space between the paragraphs, okay, between the sections of this episode.

And so beginning with John 18, 12, we read, then the detachment of troops and the captain and the officers of the

Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. And they led him away to Annas first, for he was the father -in -law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

But Peter stood at the door outside. And then the other disciple who was known to the high priest went out and spoke to her who kept the door and brought

Peter in. Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, you are not also one of this man's disciples, are you?

He said, I am not. And now the servants and officers who had made a fire of coal stood there for it was cold and they warmed themselves and Peter stood with them and warmed himself.

The high priest then asked Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. They answered him.

Jesus answered him. I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple where the

Jews always meet. And in secret, I've said nothing. Why do you ask me?

Ask those who have heard me what I said to them. Indeed, they know what I said.

And when he had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand saying, do you answer the high priest like that?

And Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if well, why do you strike me?

And then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself and therefore they said to him, you are not also one of his disciples, are you?

He denied it and said, I am not. And one of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear

Peter cut off, said, did I not see you in the garden with him? Peter then denied again and immediately a rooster crowed.

Now, John took two events, Jesus before Annas and Peter's denial, and has interwoven these two events into this passage that we have before us.

And so these two separate events are told as if they were happening simultaneous to one another in time.

And so you have first the record of Jesus being arrested, bound, taken to Annas, verses 12 through 14, which is then followed secondly by the account of Peter's first denial of Jesus, verses 15 through 18.

And then John goes back again and further speaks of the interrogation of Jesus by Annas in verses 19 through 24.

And then John once again goes back to Peter at the fireside and recounts

Peter's further denial of Jesus. And so the narrative, this episode, alternates between these two events,

Jesus before Annas and Peter's denials. And so the narrative structure of this episode may therefore be seen in this way.

And notice the pattern. We have AB, AB, A1, B1, A2, B2.

This is the narrative structure or form in which this episode is set forth.

And so in A1 and A2, Jesus is before Annas.

And then B1, B2 relate to Peter's denials of Jesus. Why this narrative pattern?

Well, one commentator described it this way. This pericope, in other words, this episode contains a brief introduction followed by an intercalation, a rhetorical technique that encloses of sandwiches one scene in the middle of a different scene so that each scene affects the interpretation of the other.

The framing scene, that would be, of course, Jesus before Annas, and the framed or embedded scene, that would be

Peter's denials, are placed on par with each other with neither having logical or chronological priority.

Either scene may comment on the other by way of comparison and contrast.

You can't help but compare and contrast these two as they are recorded together.

Fowler, a scholar, described their function and relation well. Intercalation is narrative sleight of hand, a crafty manipulation of the discourse level that creates the illusion that two episodes are taking place simultaneously.

And in intercalation, neither episode has begun until both have begun, and neither is concluded until both are concluded.

By means of the intercalation, the reader is expected to hear the denial of Peter at the very moment

Jesus is placing his reputation on Peter's witness. So there's irony here in what that scholar was intending when

Jesus was placing his reputation on Peter's witness. When Jesus was before Annas, he says, hey, my disciples heard me teach, call one of them their witnesses, and Peter is right outside a witness denying

Jesus by the fire. And so there's irony here being presented, where Jesus is clearly set forth as being alone before his accusers.

Well this is just one instance, and the reason we pointed this out, this is just one instance that reveals the literary sophistication of the biblical writers.

You know, we live in a modern world which has this wrong attitude, this assumption that people centuries ago were primitive and ignorant and uneducated.

That's not the case at all. The biblical writers, you know, were very learned and skilled in their art of writing, and that's reflected here in this episode in particular.

They were guided and enabled by the Holy Spirit, granted, but they weren't passive. The Holy Spirit used these writers and their literary skill and sophistication to tell the story, and that's what we have before us.

It's really quite amazing as a piece of literature. Now actually what this manner of relating

Peter's denials as Jesus entering his trial serves to illustrate and accentuate is that Jesus faced his trial alone, with no support even from the one who seemed most resolved and courageous among his disciples.

And it also serves to show how weak and vulnerable the disciples were once they were separated from the presence of their master.

Peter was real courageous a few minutes before when he was with Jesus in the garden, not now, even though he's just separated perhaps by a few dozen yards.

Thankfully, of course, due to Christ's death and resurrection, his ascension and enthronement is given the gift of the

Holy Spirit to his people. His people will never again be found to be in a place or situation without him being with them.

And we ought to understand that and live accordingly in faith. And so here is the outline for this episode.

First, Jesus was arrested, bound, taken to Annas. Second, Peter's first denial of Jesus.

Third, the interrogation of Jesus by Annas. And fourth, Peter's second and third denials of Jesus.

Let's work through these. First, Jesus was arrested, bound, and taken to Annas.

We read of our Lord's arrest when in the garden, verse 12, then the detachment of troops and the captain and the officers of the

Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. And we addressed this some last week.

We saw how this detachment included both Roman and Jewish officers.

Now, I'm assuming when they arrived at the house of Annas, the Roman soldiers probably went to their quarters and just the

Jewish officers came in with Jesus before Annas. That's an assumption that I'm making, but I think that's probably right.

And so, you'll recall that Judas had gathered these and then went to the garden to arrest

Jesus. It was in the garden, in our Lord's privacy and security, a place of rest and retirement, that he was rested from his own disciples and his trial soon after commenced.

They first brought Jesus before Annas, and I think I made notation of this in our notes,

I don't know. But this account of Jesus before Annas is unique to John's Gospel.

It's not found in the Synoptic Gospels. This is unique. Now, the identity and stature of this man,

Annas, is quite interesting. Annas himself, at one time, was a high priest.

He served from AD 6 to AD 15. Now, this may be AD 30 when this trial was taking place.

I don't know. So, it was perhaps 15 years since Annas had served as a high priest.

Annas was one of the most revered high priests of the first century. In fact, a total of eight high priests were from his family in the first century.

He had five sons. Each of them later served as high priests. And here, of course,

Caiaphas, his son -in -law, is mentioned as high priest. There was quite a bit of nepotism,

I suspect, that was taking place. Now, it was the Roman governor who had removed

Annas from office, again, about 15 years prior to this time. And this must have been a cause of real objection and reaction on the part of the

Jews. And it's because the Old Testament law, of course, said a high priest would serve throughout his life.

The duration of the high priest's function was until death. Kind of like our judicial appointments today, or some of them.

It's said that the turnover of high priests was frequent in the first century, largely because the

Romans would replace them. As one wrote, the office of high priest was inherited according to the

Old Testament. But Hellenistic kings, these would have been Roman leaders, put over Palestine, accustomed to removing and appointing priests as political favors in response to bribes.

Herod the Great and his Roman successors changed high priests with some frequency. There were 28 from Herod to A .D.

70. And again, each high priest, according to the Old Testament, was to serve the rest of his life as high priest.

This must have been a continual problem in the minds and hearts of the

Jews. Now, John declared in our text before us that Caiaphas, the son -in -law to Annas, was high priest that year.

Actually, Caiaphas served as high priest from A .D. 18 to A .D.

36. Among all the high priests of the first century, Caiaphas was the longest serving.

Why then was Jesus first taken to Annas? It may be that the

Jews continued to look to Annas as a man of great authority, perhaps even as the more legitimate high priest.

For again, once the high priest was appointed, he was to serve for the remainder of his life. The high priest also served as the leader of the 70

Jewish men of the Sanhedrin. He was the president of the Sanhedrin, the governing body over the

Jews. And so again, Herod would replace these high priests in order to maintain control over them, who had authority over the

Jewish people. And so perhaps they brought Jesus to Annas because really all the

Jews still kind of regarded him as the legitimate high priest, even though his son -in -law was the official high priest in that day.

Again, interestingly, only John records our Lord having brought Jesus before Annas.

And although Annas' name is mentioned by Luke, it is in this fourth gospel in which

Annas is shown most regard. Luke mentioned him once in his gospel and once in the book of Acts.

There he sets Annas and Caiaphas as if they were high priests reigning or ruling or serving side by side.

And you could only have one high priest at a time. But Luke nevertheless described them as both high priests,

Luke 3, 1 and 2. And you see what I have in bold and italic font, while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests.

And Luke is introducing the days when John the Baptist came upon the scene. And then in Acts 4, verses 5 through 7, we also read,

It came to pass on the next day that their rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas, the high priest,

Caiaphas, John, and Alexander. Notice here, Annas is described as the high priest.

But in John 18, Caiaphas is the high priest. And so Luke may be reflecting the common, again, opinion of the

Jews and preference of the Jews. They really regarded Annas as the one who is legitimate, even though Caiaphas was in that official role appointed by Herod.

Now, notice that in the passage in Acts, which is recorded, which records events some weeks after the events of John 18,

Luke identifies Annas as the high priest. Caiaphas is mentioned, but only mentioned after him.

Again, this would suggest Caiaphas was the official high priest, but the people still regarded

Annas as the legitimate high priest. And we'll see that reinforced when we consider

John 18 later in the passage. Now, after John had mentioned

Caiaphas, he explained that he had referenced him earlier in his gospel. And so we read in verse 14,

John describing who Caiaphas was. Now, it was Caiaphas who advised the

Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Of course, this brings up the sacrifice of Christ to the forefront, which was to occur, of course.

This is a reference to what we have recorded back in John chapter 11. And there we read the following when the

Jews were conspiring, Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary had seen the things Jesus did, believed in him.

But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. And then the chief priests and the

Pharisees gathered a council together and said, What shall we do? For this man works many signs.

If we let him alone like this, everyone will believe in him. And the

Romans will come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them,

Caiaphas, being a high priest that year, said to them, You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.

And then John explains why he said this. Now, this he did not say on his own authority, but being a high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation and not for that nation only, but also he would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

That would be Gentiles from all over the world. And so God had given authority to the high priests of Israel.

And when Jesus died and rose, of course, God took away their position and entrusted spiritual

Israel's leadership to his apostles. That's why there were 12. He gave the apostles authority over the 12 tribes of Israel.

And so then there was no longer a legitimate Jewish high priest, of course. Jesus is the only true high priest that the people of God resort to since the death of Christ.

And so the 12 apostles are now ruling over the 12 tribes of Israel. But when

Caiaphas served as Israel's high priest, he was legitimate at the time. God used him as an instrument through which he communicated this prophecy to his people, again, as John 18, 4 records.

Now, it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Caiaphas, of course, was not aware he was given a prophecy of what would happen. He was just speaking out of expediency.

It's better that Jesus dies than all of us get wiped out by the Romans and we lose our liberty, our freedom.

But he unwittingly was, of course, declaring a prophecy of actually what took place.

Now, these armed brigands had bound Jesus, brought him before Caiaphas, but John did not yet record the interrogation that Annas gave to Jesus.

Instead, we read with verse 15 the opening first denial of Peter.

And so there's no detail about, at this point yet, of Annas interrogating

Jesus. He's brought before Annas. There are some words about the identity of Annas and Caiaphas.

And then it's interrupted with this matter of Peter's first denial of Jesus.

And so let's read these verses again. Simon Peter followed Jesus, so did another disciple.

Now, that disciple was known to the high priest and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

But Peter stood at the door outside. And then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to her who kept the door, brought

Peter in. And the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, You are not also one of these man's disciples, are you?

The way the Greek language poses a question, it can either imply a positive answer or a negative answer.

And she's actually expecting a negative answer. No, I'm not. It may have even been a cynical question she was posing.

You're not one of them also, are you? He said, I'm not.

And now the servants and officers who had made a fire of coal stood there for it was cold.

They warmed themselves and Peter stood with them and warmed himself.

All four Gospels record both our Lord's prediction of Peter's defection and the account of his denial.

What is perhaps most unsettling about Peter's failure is that not only had he done so after our

Lord had specifically and directly warned him of the danger before him that he would deny him, but that Peter was a true disciple of Jesus when he failed in so egregious a manner.

And this is clear in John's account in at least two ways. First, if you look at verse 15 closely,

Peter is described as following Jesus. That's what disciples do, don't they?

He followed Jesus even after he'd been arrested. That's what a disciple is.

That's what a disciple does. He follows Christ. And there's a number of places in the

Gospels where this is pronounced, even the New Testament. Perhaps one of the most notable is what

Matthew records of our Lord's words. If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.

That's what true Christians do. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?

Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? If you're not following Jesus in faith, in fellowship and obedience, you don't have salvation.

You're not a Christian because a true disciple is a true Christian. Now, as you go back and look at the synoptic

Gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark and Luke, of the betrayal of Peter and how he came with Jesus, following Jesus in the brigand to Annas' or to the house of Caiaphas, they record differently how

Peter is described. And so for Peter is described in this way, both in Matthew and Mark.

But Peter followed him at a distance to the high priest courtyard. And Luke wrote more simply, but Peter followed at a distance.

But John seems to have described Peter more directly as a disciple. Simon Peter followed

Jesus. You see that? And so again, this is what disciples are, this is what disciples do.

They follow Jesus. And so really what is tragic is that Peter denied

Jesus, even though he was a true disciple of Jesus Christ. Another way in which

John showed Peter to have defected from Christ as a true disciple is in the manner that his companion is described.

The author of the fourth Gospel wrote, and Simon Peter followed Jesus. And so did another disciple, clearly implying

Peter was a disciple as well as this other fellow, this another disciple. Peter was a disciple of Jesus Christ.

So was this other one who had accompanied him. And so what is very disconcerting about Peter's failure is that he was a true disciple of Jesus Christ when he denied his

Lord and that he did so three times. Even after our Lord had warned him and had exhorted him that he pray that he not enter temptation.

When in the garden, Jesus had told all of his disciples, watch and pray that you may not enter temptation.

The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Well, this, of course, should serve to show you and me that though we may be true

Christians, true followers of Jesus, we are capable of the grossest of failures before our

Lord and others. Just as Peter was all too proud, self -sufficient, prayerless, even sleeping when he should have been praying for God's mercy and grace toward him, even as he was presuming on his love and commitment to Jesus, so it is that any one of us who are quite weak may do so as disciples.

And so we might say we are in more danger when we're following Jesus at a distance, when we are not readily identified by others as his disciples.

Peter denied it and he stood among them, warming himself with the very ones that had arrested and abused

Jesus already. Now, one question that must be asked, who is this that John described as another disciple?

Verse 15, who was with Peter? Of course, we would accept the understanding that John the

Apostle was referring to himself. Not all commentators agree with this, however.

We won't get into detail, I didn't put it in our notes, but they would argue no Galilean fisherman could have had an association or acquaintance with the high priest in Jerusalem.

It could not have been John. Some actually say it had to have been Judas Iscariot, who was with Peter.

I think that's kind of silly. I think it clearly was John the Apostle.

And the idea that his family in Galilee, his dad was quite a wealthy fisherman, you recall, had several boats, could have indeed been associated, have a friendship with the high priest is not out of the question.

And in fact, Eusebius in the fourth century in his church history described John himself. John the

Apostle is from a priestly family, interestingly. Of course, most often in John's gospel,

John refers to himself as the one whom Jesus loved. Here he's described as another disciple.

And I've given several instances in the gospel, John 13, John 19,

John 20, repeatedly when John referred to himself as the disciple whom

Jesus loved. Top of page six, notes. It's interesting that John did not receive the same treatment as Peter.

They were both disciples and apparently the people or some of the people knew John. They're in the household of Annas.

Granted, maybe those singled out Peter to be a disciple of Jesus because he rather stood out when he cut off the ear of Malchus when in the garden.

But it's also the case that John might have passed possible scrutiny because of his familiarity with the family of the high priest.

We read in verses 15 through 17 once again, but focusing on another disciple who was with Peter.

Simon Peter followed Jesus, so did another disciple. Now, that disciple was known to the high priest, went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

Notice this other disciple did not follow Jesus like Peter, but rather he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

But Peter stood at the door outside. And then the other disciple who was known to the high priest went out, spoke to her who kept the door and brought

Peter in. And then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, you're not also one of this man's disciples, are you?

And so while the brigands escorted Jesus under arrest, John had apparently followed Jesus somewhat closer than had

Peter. John had went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. Peter did not venture in, but John did so.

He was known by those of the household of the high priest, for he knew the family of the high priest and had, I would suspect, visited there before.

It was John who had gained admittance for Peter. Apparently, the slave girl, the servant girl at the gate knew

John, accepted John's word. Hey, let Peter in. And she let Peter in.

Interestingly, he gained admittance for Peter. Peter entered with an unfamiliarity that John possessed.

John apparently was pretty familiar with the place. As one wrote, unlike the other disciple,

Peter was not accustomed to entering the headquarters of persons in high society, and the unfamiliarity of these surroundings added to the general sense of uneasiness that made him lose his nerve.

That's probably right. For all the confidence with which in the upper room he declared his readiness to lay down his life for his master, the event was to prove that his master knew

Peter better than Peter knew himself. Certainly true. Now, this first portion of John's account of Peter's denials concludes with Peter standing by the fire alongside the very ones who arrested

Jesus. And maybe the Roman soldiers were at the fire, too. I don't know. Verse 18 records,

Now the servants and officers, those could have been Jewish officers of the temple, who had made a fire of coals or charcoal, stood there, for it was cold, and they warmed themselves.

And Peter stood with them and warmed himself. And so here, although Peter was perhaps but a few dozen yards from Jesus, who may have been taken indoors,

Peter now stood at a distance from Jesus, failed to own Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

And so may the Lord not allow any of us to be so removed from fellowship in our

Lord's presence that we would fail to own him before others who deny him and are opposed to him.

Peter seems to be described and set forth as really someone who's rather incentive.

He's standing there with the ones who arrested Jesus, warming himself. Well, Jesus is in being interrogated.

Now, after having related this first of three denials, Peter recorded the interrogation of Jesus by Annas.

And so he goes back now into this third section. And so again, we read the high priest and ask

Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Jesus answered him,

I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues in the temple where the Jews always meet.

And in secret, I've said nothing. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them.

Indeed, they know what I said. And when he had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck

Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Do you answer the high priest like that?

And Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if well, why do you strike me?

And then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Now, the first question to answer is, who is this high priest mentioned in verse 19?

We saw earlier that Caiaphas is the high priest. Annas was his father in law.

And so some argue verse 19 is Caiaphas now. That's not correct. Here, Annas is described as the high priest.

This was Annas interrogating him. But John refers to him as the high priest.

And so when Jesus was arrested, they escorted him to the house of Annas. And then here in verse 19, the writer of the gospel began to relate the interrogation of Jesus by the high priest.

And I put that in quotations again. This would have been Annas, who was not officially the high priest, but probably the one that the

Jews most regarded as a legitimate high priest. And so we should understand this as a reference to Annas.

Even though technically he was not the high priest, Caiaphas was. Now, Annas essentially asked

Jesus two questions, one about his disciples and the other about his doctrine. Or what it was that he taught.

We should understand this question to inquire what distinguished Jesus. What Jesus himself would regard as his central message that he was proclaiming to his disciples.

And actually thinking about it, it's a good question for us to maybe take to heart.

It's a good question to initially ask of someone who claims to be a Christian, who speaks to others regarding the

Christian faith. Who are your followers or with whom do you walk? That's a good question to ask professing

Christians. What is the central primary message that you're attempting to make known and convince people to embrace?

That's a good question to ask people, isn't it? Because there's a whole lot of people who claim to be Christian.

One capsulated Annas' inquiry. The high priest, here surely Annas of course, questioned

Jesus about two matters, his disciples and his teaching. Teaching is another word for doctrine.

I didn't look at the ESV but it probably says teaching, doesn't it? Rather than doctrine in the

New King James Version. Does it say doctrine in the ESV? In that verse?

I think it probably says teaching. The former question may have dealt with the size of his following and the potential for any possible conspiracy.

The latter question suggests that the fundamental concern of the Jewish authorities was theological. Even though later they presented the case to Pilate as being political.

At the core of their concern was Jesus' claim as to who he was and consequently their fear that he was leading the people astray into apostasy.

That's what Annas thought of this Jesus. Others described

Annas' concerns this way. He really wanted to know just how influential Jesus had become and how large a following he had gathered.

This was a more concern to Annas than the truth or falsity of Jesus' teaching.

How many followers have you got? Tell me about them. What are you teaching them? Jesus refused to answer

Annas directly. Instead he stated he had taught openly and widely and that there were those who had heard him that were available to testify legitimate witnesses of what he had taught them.

John and Peter were just outside. Call them. Verses 20 and 21 record

Jesus' answer to Annas. I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple where the

Jews always meet. And in secret I've said nothing. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard me what

I said to them. Indeed they know what I said. Why did

Jesus respond in this way? I think he was probably actually challenging

Annas to officiate a legitimate trial.

Let's explain. Jesus refused to say anything directly regarding his disciples.

He stated there were many who had heard him publicly and repeatedly teaching. His message was no secret message.

He had spoken openly, frequently, clearly. He must have taught so clearly and frequently that just about anyone who heard him could relate what he had taught.

He taught his disciples the same things he taught in public. I didn't teach anything in secret.

I taught them that I didn't teach in public, as one wrote. But what Jesus had said to them, his disciples in private, was of a piece with what he said in public.

He did not maintain one message for public consumption and another more dangerous one for a secret group of initiates.

His private discourse further unpacked what he said in public or extrapolated his message a little farther according to his perception of his followers' willingness and capacity to understand and obey.

But the heart of what he preached was in the public arena. The result of teaching in synagogues or at the temple.

And therefore there was little point in questioning his disciples any of the countless thousands who had heard him would do.

Well, one of the officers reacted to Jesus' words, interpreting his words as disrespectful and dishonoring of Annas.

And so we read in verse 22, And when he had said these things, one of the officers, that would be a

Jewish temple officer, who stood by, struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying,

Do you answer the high priest like this? Like that? Can you imagine the horror of this man on the day of judgment, standing before Jesus, whom he struck with his palm on this occasion?

It might be good at this point to affirm that the entire proceedings of the trials of Jesus were unjust and illegitimate.

It was a travesty of justice, Jewish justice. Several centuries later, when the

Jewish Mishnah was written and published, it included the nature of a just trial conducted by Jewish authorities.

It wasn't Christian, it was Jewish. Now, granted, it was two centuries after this, but it must have reflected long held and practiced

Jewish judicial procedure among the Jews. Donald Carson wrote of this. It is regularly pointed out that in the tractate

Sanhedrin, that was a section of the Jewish Mishnah, it is stipulated that in the capital cases, there were to be no night trials, that the proceedings had to extend over at least two consecutive days.

And that provision was made for the private interrogation of witnesses.

And I think that's a key point here. Jesus says, hey, there's witnesses out here, call them.

When a man was accused, he wasn't under legal obligation to justify himself.

Witnesses were to be called. And this is what Jesus was basically calling Annas's attention to.

Similarly, George Beasley Murray, a Baptist commentator, recorded, the observation has often been made that the procedure of the

Jewish authorities in the trial accounts is a crass contradiction to the rules laid down in the tractate

Sanhedrin concerning the trials for capital offenses. No less than 27 deviations from the latter have been reckoned in the synoptic records.

That is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And then I noticed this morning, the

Reformation Study Bible note. I thought, well, I'll put this in, too. It gave a few specific transgressions of the

Jewish authorities. Judging from the description of rules for trials found in the Mishnah of some 200 years later, the proceedings here were marked by serious irregularities and violations of Jewish law.

The Sanhedrin was not supposed to meet at night. The death penalty could not be declared on the day of the trial.

There was false evidence and false witnesses were used. Jesus was exposed to blows from attendants during the trial.

In addition to all this, it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to meet for a capital case on the eve of a

Sabbath or feast day. It was Passover. These violations show that Jesus' condemnation by the

Jewish authorities was a travesty of justice. Of course, similar to what happened to Jesus being struck before a high priest, the

Apostle Paul also experienced, didn't he? As recorded in the book of Acts, the same act of injustice.

When Paul stood before the Jewish high priest, he didn't recognize him as the high priest. And he reacted in this way, recorded in Acts 23.

Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, that'd be the Sanhedrin, said, Men and brethren, I've lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

And the high priest, Ananias, commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.

And then Paul said to him, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall, you grave, you sepulcher.

For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law? That soldier smiting

Jesus did so contrary to the Mosaic law. Those who stood by said, do you revile

God's high priest? Then Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest. For it's written, you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.

Of course, Jesus didn't speak evil. Paul did. He didn't know the identity of the high priest.

And so Paul reviled the high priest and as a result was smitten. But in his response, he confronted them with having violated the law and having smitten him.

God will strike you. And of course, Jesus did not revile the high priest. Rather, in his response, he was essentially calling for a legitimate legal proceeding of intervening, of interviewing witnesses.

And Ananias had failed to do that. Now, again, this is,

I think this is Beasley Murray, not,

I've got Ibid in the footnote. It's not Sproul's, it's Beasley Murray. He wrote this, top page nine.

In any court inquiry among Jews, the correct procedure was to call witnesses, not to question the accused.

And then Beasley Murray quotes this scholar Bornhauser. Jewish judges did not inquire of the accused, but of the witnesses.

On their testimony, everything depended. If two witnesses agreed on essentials, then the accused was doomed, no matter what he might say in his defense.

Jesus accordingly was justified in objecting to the procedure and demanding a proper trial.

Moreover, the questions of Ananias about Jesus' disciples and his teaching are likely to be linked with the tradition perpetuated in the

Talmud. That Jesus was convicted of being a false prophet. The mark of the false prophet is that he secretly entices or leads astray the people to apostatize from the

God of Israel. The punishment for which is death. It looks as if Ananias was endeavoring to make

Jesus incriminate himself on this issue. Jesus sees through this attempt, declares that his teaching of the people had been in public places, in the temple, in the synagogue, not in secret, with a view of promoting apostasy among the people.

And earlier in John's Gospel, the Jewish leaders thought and accused Jesus of leading people astray.

And so our Lord was basically confronting Ananias with the illegitimacy of his interrogation and his calling for what the law prescribed.

It was unjust. Well, the reaction in response of Jesus to having been struck is found in verse 23.

Jesus answered him, if I've spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if well, why do you strike me? And it would seem that this response of Jesus brought an end to the inquiry of Ananias.

It suggested that Ananias' effort had failed to incriminate Jesus to find a charge that Ananias perhaps could relate to the

Sanhedrin that Jesus would face later. We then read in verse 24, then

Ananias sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. It's very possible that Ananias and his son -in -law,

Caiaphas, lived in the same palace with maybe a common courtyard. And so going from Ananias to Caiaphas may have just been a short distance.

Well, then that comes to a conclusion, and now we have the second portion of Peter's denial, in which we read of his second and third denials of Jesus.

Now, Simon Peter stood, warmed himself, therefore they said to him, you are not also one of his disciples, are you?

He denied it, said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear

Peter cut off, said, did I not see you in the garden with him? Peter then denied again, and immediately a rooster crowed.

No word of Peter's remorse, no word of him going out weeping bitterly as in the synoptics, is the rooster crowed, that's it.

Even though it seems some time had passed since the first denial, it does not appear that Peter had felt remorse for that initial defection.

According to the synoptics, he did so when the rooster crowed. That's when he was smitten, remembering the

Lord's warning and prediction. Then he was struck with shame and remorse. Here we simply read he warmed himself, even as his master was being abused in his interrogation.

Peter denied the Lord two more times, making three, and then in accordance with Jesus's word, immediately a rooster crowed.

Now of course, even in Peter's defection from and denial of Jesus, Peter's salvation was never in danger.

He was not as Judas who had betrayed the Lord and perished in his sin, being the son of perdition. Peter was weak in faith, he was not void of faith.

Even in his denial and in his bitter weeping and remorse, Peter still had the grace of saving faith in his

Savior and Lord. How do we know this? Well, it's not necessarily clear from John's Gospel. Again, there's no record of his response, his reaction, but it is from the account of the synoptics,

Matthew, Mark and Luke. When the Lord had warned Peter the spiritual danger he was in, he told him that Satan was behind it all, who desired to extinguish faith in Peter.

But Jesus said to Peter, I prayed for you that your faith fail not. It's recorded in Luke's account of our

Lord's prediction to Peter. Simon, Simon, indeed, Satan has asked for you that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith should not fail.

And when you've returned to me, strengthen your brethren. And then

Peter unwisely, presumptuously said, Lord, I'm ready to go with you both to prison and to death.

And he said, I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny me three times that you know me.

And John records the fulfillment of that, of course. We've addressed this whole matter before, but I think it's of such an important lesson for us, it bears repetition.

We read a poor Peter, very proud, confident of his faith and love toward Jesus.

He believed he was more spiritual, courageous than any of the others who followed the Savior. He thought he loved

Jesus more than they did. His pride preceded his destruction. His haughty spirit portended his fall.

The trial would come from Satan, but the spiritual benefit or fruit that would result would be due to the intercession and authority of Jesus Christ.

Only after Peter experienced his great trial of faith was he truly ready for spiritual leadership among the people of God.

Peter was not ready to be an apostle until this happened. He was too proud, too presumptuous, too self -sufficient.

This humbled him in one, in one action. And so in order to maximize the benefit of this sifting work in Peter's life, the

Lord in a very clear manner predicted the exact time in which Peter would deny that he even knew him.

Jesus saw the danger that Peter was in. Sometimes those more mature than we see the precipice before us long before we take the great fall.

Satan was after Peter. Peter was clueless. A more mature brother in Christ, a more, more mature sister in Christ, can advise you and caution you where you may be totally uninformed and ignorant.

I talked to a young man, Jason and I did, about probably two months ago, maybe six weeks ago.

He says there's nobody in my church, an older woman, who can help my wife, as the scriptures say.

And he was lamenting the fact that his wife didn't have an older, mature Christian woman to mentor her and guide her.

This is the way the Lord helps us. Because some of us who have been in the

Lord a while, we've seen most everything. We've been around the block a few times. And we can see what's going to fall out.

And so there's occasions when we have to warn people who are totally clueless of what might be coming down the pike.

And, of course, Jesus warned Peter about this. Notice that Jesus said

Satan had to ask permission to do harm to Peter. You know, Satan asked to sift you as wheat.

Satan desired to destroy Peter's faith. But the Lord told

Peter, I prayed for you, your faith is not going to fail. The incident took place just as it was going to take place before Jesus prayed.

Satan brought his temptation, Peter fell. The same thing happened, but the outworking was completely different.

Satan wanted to sift Peter as a farmer would sift the shaft from the wheat. Satan wanted all the wheat to blow away and the shaft only to remain.

But Jesus prayed for Peter. The opposite occurred.

The shaft was blown away and the wheat remained. And that's what happens when trials come into the lives of the

Christian. And the only reason they result in our further sanctification and drawing close to the

Lord is because of the intercession of Jesus Christ as our high priest on our behalf.

If left to ourselves, Satan would ravage us left and right. But Jesus, as he told

Peter, I have prayed for you. And Jesus ever lives to make intercession for Christians as the book of Hebrews declares to us.

And so Satan wanted to sift Peter as wheat. He wanted to extinguish his faith. But through the prayer of Jesus, the works of the devil are thwarted.

And again, we see the presumption of Peter. He said to Jesus, Lord, I'm ready to go with you, both the prison and the death.

I'm ready, Lord. I'm able. I've quoted Spurgeon in the past about, you know,

Luke 13 and the account of these resolvers that came to Jesus. You know, I will follow you wherever you go.

And Spurgeon talks about resolvers. He says that go down by the seaside and right in the water with your finger.

I'm resolved. Come back tomorrow and see what remains of that resolve. And so, you know, to think that you or I, apart from the grace that's in the

Lord, that the Lord Jesus gives, that we can stand. That is presumption. That is faulty. You and I would take the dive so fast if it were not for the grace of God in Christ.

And thankfully, he's preserving us. But again, this whole episode of Peter was a preparation for his future service.

Jesus said to him, would you have returned to me? Strengthen your brethren. And Peter was able to do that.

Thereafter, he wrote about it in 1 Peter. He had fallen. You be careful. You beware.

The devil's like a roaring lion, walking around, seeking whom he may devour. Peter was writing out a personal experience.

And he was warning Christians, new Christians in 1 Peter, maybe ones about ready to be baptized as Christians.

He warned them, you watch out. Don't be unwatchful. But rather, don't be arrogant or self -sufficient.

He didn't say like I was, but clearly that's the case when you read the Gospels. We need to rely upon the

Lord Jesus. And of course, we need to stay close to him. Not at a distance, as it were.

But rather, we need to be close to the Lord Jesus. And so, we don't know what's coming down tomorrow or this coming week in any one of us in our individual lives.

And we are to prepare ourselves now. Pray now that you enter not temptation, as Jesus said.

And so that when that time comes, we'll be alert to it. We'll see it. And we'll resort to the grace of the

Lord Jesus that we'll get through it. And that's how the Christian is to think and to live.

And it's certainly illustrated for us here. And so may our Lord enable us to always be ready and able by his grace to give a faithful witness of Christ and his words when the opportunity is set before us.

Now, like Peter here, may he fill us with the Holy Spirit to live in us and to give us courage on those occasions and words to speak that our hearers will not be able to disregard or forget.

Where they'll just go right to the soul and have an impact and abiding influence upon their thinking and their feeling with regard to Christ.

And may the Lord forgive and restore us when we do fail. Because we will. As Peter had failed.

For none of us have been or will be perfect witnesses of Jesus Christ as he deserves for us to be in our declaration of him before others.

Amen. Let's pray. Thank you, Father, for your word for us.

We thank you for the lessons that we have from Peter's life. We thank you, our God, for the faithfulness of Jesus Christ as he stood before his accusers.

Give us wisdom, our God, that we would know how to understand and apply these things in our own lives.

In the way that we act and react to that which you order to come into our day -to -day life as disciples of Jesus Christ.

And we'll thank you and praise you for your kindness. Thank you for your intercession on our behalf, our

God, our Lord Jesus. For if that were not taken place, we would quickly fall.

And so we praise you, our God, for your love and your grace, your provision, the strength that you give your people.

And that you've purposed to save us, holy and fully through Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray.