The arrest of Jesus John 18:11-27
Job 5:7 says, "People are born for trouble as predictably as sparks fly upward from a fire." Troubles are part of life. And there’s no end to the troubles you will probably face. Let me give you some examples.
A fierce gust of wind blew 45-year old Vittorio Luise’s car into a river near Naples, Italy in 1983. He managed to break out a window, climb out, and swim to shore where a tree blew over and killed him. Mike Stewart, 31, of Dallas was filming a public service movie in 1983 on "The Dangers of Low-Level Bridges" when the truck he was standing on passed under a low-level bridge and killed him. Walter Hallas, a 26-year old store clerk in Leeds, England was so afraid of dentists that in 1979 he asked a fellow worker to try to cure his toothache by punching him in the jaw. His friend punched him and this caused Hallas to fall down, hitting his head, and he died of a fractured skull. Surprised while breaking into a house in Antwerp, Belgium, a thief fled out the back door, clambered over a nine foot wall, dropped down, and found himself in the city prison. And you thought that you were having a bad day!
The last couple of weeks I tried to cover the passage in verses 1-11 and I got hung up and we never got to the end of the chapter, so, what I want to do now is to start with those remaining verses and hopefully this will lead into if not finish this section.
And so, we begin in verse 4 where it seems as though Jesus left His disciples in the garden and then He went out the gate by Himself to meet that massive crowd of clergyman, temple police, Roman soldiers and basically hangers on who have a tendency to join in whenever they see something happening and they want to know what’s going on. And all these people had just come out of the city of Jerusalem and then walked up the hill with all their lanterns and torches and you’ll remember that I said they were all led by one person and that was Judas. Now, he wasn’t leading in the sense that he was in charge of this group but he was simply showing them where Jesus and His disciples had spend time together.
And, as they were all coming to arrest Jesus, we know that He was more than aware of what they had intended to do because He had already told the disciples about what was going to happen when they were back in the upper room. And don’t forget, that Jesus is omniscient which means He knows everything. I mean, nothing takes Him by surprise. And that means, you can never do something stupid and then God will say, “I didn’t see that coming.”
Now listen to this, God has seen every success and every failure you’ll ever experience before you ever experience them and this is why I say, you can’t lose your salvation based on what you do because God knew you would do these things before you ever did them. I mean, that’s why He saved you in the first place. His salvation wasn’t based on how good you were or even on how good you were going to be. We seem to have this mentality that God forgave everything we did before we were saved but now somehow we’re accountable for our sin. God expects us to live according to the teaching of the scriptures but at the same time He realizes that none of us will ever be perfect until we stand in His presence. So, on one hand, He’s not cutting us slack and telling us to do whatever we want to while on the other hand He’s not going to punish us for things Jesus died for. So, we are all accountable and responsible to Him but at the same time, we also realize that we’re still sinners in need of God’s grace and forgiveness.
So, Jesus had seen Judas make his deal with the religious crowd and then He had seen them all getting organized as they left Jerusalem and He had seen them all going down the hill into the Kedron Valley and then climbing back up to the Mount of Olives.
And as they approached the garden Jesus stood there and asked them a very simple question which was, “Whom do you seek?” Now, we hear that and we have to wonder, why did He ask that? I mean, wasn’t it obvious who they were looking for? And they responded by saying, “Jesus of Nazareth.” And He said, “I am.” Now, I know in the King James Version it says, “I am He” but the word ‘he’ is assumed, in other words, it’s not actually there. And then it says, “As soon then as He had said unto them, I am they went backward, and fell to the ground.”
This tells us that Jesus wasn’t trapped, He wasn’t tricked and He certainly wasn’t surprised or confused about what was going on but there flowed from Him such a commanding sense of the power and the authority of God that they couldn’t even stand up in His presence. It’s like this whole crowd of somewhere around a thousand men all fell backwards in absolute shock.
This was another sign that John gives us to demonstrate that Jesus wasn’t a victim in this situation but He was in total control of everything. And I think that part of the reason He revealed this power was so His disciples could see that it was He and not the Jews or even the Roman army who were in control of the situation.
So, when this happened the disciples could also see that Jesus was willfully submitting to His enemies because it was obvious by the power He displayed that He was willfully laying down His life down and no one was taking it from Him. I mean, think about it, the only thing He did was say, "I am," and they all fell down. So, what could they possibly do here that He didn’t allow?
I read one commentator who said, they were probably all standing too close together and when the front row stumbled and fell backwards then everyone naturally followed suit. And that’s about the stupidest explanation I ever heard. I mean, these men were the temple police who majored in crowd control and they were backed up by the Roman army, these weren’t the Keystone Kops. Besides, have you ever been in a large crowd where one person falls and knocks everyone else over? Usually, a person might fall by themselves or they might knock one other person over but that’s about it.
And the strangest part is that they didn’t even acknowledge that it happened or at least, they didn’t seem to react. They just jumped back up and the conversation went on as it did before.
I heard about a big Baptist church in the states that had a baptismal tank in the floor behind the pulpit and it had like a sliding door that covered it when it wasn’t being used. In the large American churches I’ve been in, they usually have the baptisms just before the evening service. Well, one day this church had a visiting speaker and the tank was open but he didn’t notice it. As he was preaching he made a point and then he stepped back but when he did he went too far and landed in the tank with a great big splash. He jumped out and continued his message as though nothing happened. And yet, it was obvious that he was soaking wet. And as much as you might try, you can’t ignore the obvious anymore than these guys tried to ignore the fact that they had all fallen down because of who Jesus is.
And, I think, that the power that came from Jesus and knocked them over was another sign that was recorded by John to show us that Jesus was anything but a victim but He was in total control of everything that was going on.
It’s interesting to see that He asked such an obvious question. I mean, He already knew why they were there, so, what was the point of asking the obvious? I think, He asked the same question twice because His question was more than it seemed. At first glance, His question made sure they focused on Him and let His disciples go and this seems to be enough reason to ask it but there was obviously more than that because when the soldiers responded by saying they were looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He said, “I am.” And this was an answer to their question, but it was a lot more that that. He was Jesus of Nazareth, but He was more than the man from Nazareth. And as I said, Jesus didn’t say, “I am he,” or “I am this Jesus,” or even, “I am the one you seek.” His answer was simply, “I am” and these words identified Him with the very name of Yahweh, the God of Israel. And so, having clarified who they were looking for and who they found, the question left hanging was what were they going to do with Him. I mean, what would they do with God, now that God was in their hands and He was totally submissive to whatever they wanted to do.
You see, the scripture clearly tells us that Jesus went to the cross of His own free will because that was why He was born and that was why He came into this world. In John 12:27 He said, "Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour." Then in verses 32-33 He says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me. This He said, signifying what death He should die." So, He came into the world to die and that was the only reason for which He was born.
I think the religious rulers would have loved to have gotten their hands on the disciples as well, so Jesus made the soldiers repeat their orders twice so that from their own mouths they’d have to say that they had come for Him and had no right to arrest His disciples because He wanted them to be free to carry on their ministry after He had gone back to heaven.
And then in verse 12 it says, "That the saying might be fulfilled, which He spoke, of them whom Thou gavest Me have I lost none." And here He was saying, I’m not going to lose any of them physically and that’s why I don’t want them captured. He was not only protecting His disciples to make sure they were safe to carry on the ministry but also that they’d be kept from something He knew they weren’t prepared to handle.
And yet, it’s interesting to see that later on almost all of these men died for their faith. For instance, Andrew was crucified, Bartholomew was beaten then crucified, James, son of Alphaeus was stoned to death, then James the son of Zebedee was beheaded, Judas not Iscariot but the other one was also stoned to death, Matthew was speared to death, Peter was crucified upside down by his own request because he didn’t feel as though he was good enough to die the way Jesus did and just before that they say he had been forced to watch his wife crucified and encouraged her to focus her attention on the Lord. And then
Philip was crucified as was Simon, Thomas was speared to death and Matthias was stoned to death. And the only one who lived out his life was John who was exiled to the Isle of Patmos where he wrote the book of Revelation and then he died of old age at around 105. And all of this comes from the Fox’s Book of Martyrs. But, it was obvious that they had a job to do and they weren’t ready to die and that’s why Jesus enabled them to get out of the garden before He was arrested.
And then here’s my favorite part of the story. In verse 10 it says, "Then Simon Peter, having a sword (and most people agree that a better translation would be a dagger) drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus." I like this part because every time I mess up I think, well, I’ve never cut anybodies ear off, yet.
Peter is what we’d call impetuous. He always seems to act or say something without ever bothering to think about it first. So, in what he perceives to be a very tense situation he takes out a knife and starts stabbing at the first person who’s closest to him. The Bible says that Peter cut off his right ear and yet, I’m sure he wasn’t even aiming for an ear. Fortunately, Malchus had fairly good reactions and he must have ducked sideways and Peter caught his ear rather than his throat. And then, we see a beautiful demonstration of Jesus’ protective love when He healed Malchus by recreating the ear. And I think this whole thing must happened rather quickly because the Roman soldiers were probably standing behind the temple police but they were close enough to act and ready to intervene but only if it was called for.
Can you imagine what could have happened if Jesus wasn’t in charge? I mean, Peter took out his sword and was lopping off the ear of the man closest to him and this would be like striking a match in a room filled with gas fumes. How quickly and easily both the Jewish and the Roman soldiers could have jumped on all of the disciples and the situation would have been an absolute disaster because Jesus would have been taken away to be crucified and all of the others would have been killed. But, of course, Jesus was in control and He demonstrated this by His healing.
We aren’t sure but there were some who suggested that Malchus wasn’t necessarily just a menial slave because according to oriental usage, the term to describe him could be used of a king’s official or ‘a minister’ and since he was referred to as the high priests servant he was probably the high priest’s official representative at the arrest. So, he might have been standing beside Judas and had the responsibility to make sure that Jesus was arrested.
One writer suggested that the Lord’s healing of Malchus was more out of concern for His disciples than an act of compassion for His enemies because if Malchus had gone home without his ear then the soldiers would have had plenty of evidence to arrest all the disciples as well. So, this healing made sure there was no evidence to charge the disciples with anything.
I wonder if Malchus was ever able to forget the sensation of Jesus’ hand on the side of his bloody face. One minute he’d feel the excruciating pain and blood all over the place and the next minute, nothing. Several commentators have suggested that the reason John mentions his name is because later he became a disciple and both he and his miracle of healing were known to the Christian community but we really don’t know.
And then verse 11 tells us, "Then said Jesus unto Peter, put up thy sword into the sheath." Which is another way of saying, Peter, put that thing away. Peter momentarily put his trust in the sword, rather than the Lord and as brave as he appeared here, we find that a little later on Peter wasn’t as great as he thought he was because he denied Jesus three times.
Well, by this time, this particular crowd had seen two miracles. They had all fallen over when Jesus revealed who He was and then they saw Him give Malchus a new ear. And under normal circumstances those miracles would have blown everyone away, but not here, because sin had blinded their minds. And just as they saw two miracles we also see the love of Jesus was expressed here in two different ways. First, He protected His disciples by making the soldiers answer the same question twice and then as He performed this miracle of healing He was making sure that no one had any reason to arrest them.
And then in verse 11 it says, "Then said Jesus unto Peter, put up thy sword into the sheath; the cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" And Matthew includes the statement: "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." In other words, this is God’s plan, Peter. And I don’t think He was being critical when He said that because He knew that Peter was only doing what he did because he loved Him.
We also notice here that Jesus uses the word "cup" and the idea of a cup in the Bible is associated with judgment. In Jeremiah 25:15 we read about the cup of His wrath and in Revelation 14:10 it also mentions the cup of indignation. So what Jesus was saying was that He was going to drink a cup full of the wrath of God. And that’s what the cross was all about because it was there that God poured out His wrath on the sin of the world.
Well, from the accounts of the gospel writers concerning the arrest of Jesus, one primary truth stands out and that’s that Jesus was in complete and absolute control of the situation. He wasn’t the helpless victim of a cruel and unjust system and His life wasn’t snatched from Him either but He surrendered Himself to sinful hands. In other words, it was like He said in John 10:17-18. “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down my life that I make take it up again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
I know there are many who would like to paint a picture of Jesus as a helpless victim, as someone who wanted the world to see a better way but His plans fell apart because the world didn’t care. Then there are others who see Him as a man whose plans went astray and that His efforts to change the system simply blew up in His face. And the truth is, these people are the unbelievers who have a shallow grasp of the plan of God because they miss the fact that God was in complete control. He was in control before creation, He was in control when Jesus was on the cross and He’s still in control today. And even though life so often seems to be out of control and in spite of everything that going on and the effects of sin that are so obvious, God is still in control.
This is a strange portion of scripture because of all we see here. I mean, we have the disciples all gathered with Jesus in the garden and for the most part they’re silent. As a matter of fact, if Peter didn’t charge Malchus with the sword we wouldn’t even know they were there. And then we have somewhere around 600-1000 men coming with Judas who was there to betray the Lord. And then finally, we have Malchus who lost an ear but got it back again. And all these things seem to be disjointed in a way but they aren’t.
You see, in spite of the fact that everything doesn’t always go the way we think we think it ought to, we can rest assured that Jesus is still in control. And this tells me that we all need to start every day with Him and then consciously bring Him everything that’s on our minds throughout the day to Him and then check in at the end of the day to discuss whatever took place during that day. And as we spend with Jesus talking about our lives I believe our lives will make more sense because He’s the one who put us here and He’s the one who still has a reason for our being here.hen
Now, in the text I read at the beginning you’ll notice that both Jesus and Peter were being questioned. Jesus was questioned by Annas who was the most powerful religious leader in Israel and Peter was questioned by two slaves and a group who were gathered around the fire. And then we see that Jesus had nothing to say while Peter spilled his guts when he should have been quiet.
And basically, John does something interesting in this portion of scripture because he alternates between the interrogation of Jesus by Annas and the questioning of Peter by those who were in the courtyard. And it almost seems like he’s comparing these two interrogations and their response. And John graphically shows us the majesty of Jesus Christ while contrasting that to the shallowness of faith in the life Peter as he’s does the one thing he bragged he would never do, which was to betray the Lord.
So, we see Jesus arrested and brought before Annas in verses 12-14 and we know that the Roman soldiers who were present during the arrest were only mentioned in the gospels by John and as I said they may have kept their distance and were only there in case any trouble had broken out. And the officers who did arrest Him would have been the Jewish temple police who it says tied His hands before they took Him away which is pretty absurd considering that He had just knocked the entire crowd over with one word but there were three reasons why they would have done this. First, it was common practice to tie up anyone in order to secure him. Just like today, when someone is arrested they take them in with handcuffs on. Second, it was also done on the advice of Judas. In Matthew 26:48 Judas had made the statement: "...hold Him fast" which is the same as saying, tie Him up. And then third, it was a fulfillment of prophecy. Psalm 118:27 tells us to, "bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar." When the sacrifice was given to the priest, it was bound or tied up. In Genesis 22:9, Isaac, who is a picture of Jesus Christ, was bound by his father before he was to be sacrificed. So, by being bound, Jesus was fulfilling the Old Testament type because He was bound in preparation as a sin offering. And although they couldn’t see it, the body of Jesus was bound by ropes so that our souls might be free from the bondage of sin and Satan.
And here we are seeing the beginning of two trials. There is a religious trial and there is a civil trial. And His religious trial was with Israel while His civil trial was with Rome. In terms of Jesus’ execution, nothing could be done without Rome, so, Israel could decide that He should die, but Rome had to execute Him because the Jews had no right to take a life because they were under Roman bondage.
And then we are told that Jesus was led away to stand before Annas who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. And here, we see John focusing on Annas because he’s the real power or the driving force, behind the condemnation of Jesus. Annas wasn’t the high priest at this time but his son-in-law Caiaphas was, as John told us back in chapter 11 verse 49. Annas had been the high priest from A.D. 6 to A.D. 15 and then he was removed from the position by the Roman prefect according to the historian Josephus because he had become so powerful. Now, even though he no longer had the title he wasn’t actually stripped of any authority because in the years that followed, he arranged for the appointment of each of his five sons and one of his grandsons as the high priest and this was followed by his son-in-law Caiaphas. And so Annas was the real power so far as the office of high priest was concerned, and those who officially held the title of high priest were only figureheads.
According to John 18:19, Annas was still called the "high priest" and the question that always comes up is: "Why is Annas called the high priest and so is Caiaphas? How can two people hold the same office?” Well, Israel had deteriorated so much that rather than having a high priest for life, anyone who had been the high priest just kept the title. It was like the President of the United States. The ex-president is always introduced as the President. He may no longer have the job but he always retains the title. And it was very likely that Annas legitimately had the right to be high priest because he was of the line of Aaron.
So Annas might not have been the official high priest but he was still running the show and that was why he was involved in Jesus’ arrest. They also say that when he was removed from office in A.D. 15, he took control of the concessions in the Temple which made him the money man in religious circles. And that was another reason why he remained the power behind the scene.
And not only was he rich to begin with but he also made a ton of money from the temple where he had the concessions for animals for sacrifices. When people came to make their sacrifice they first entered the outer court of the Temple which was called "The Court of the Gentiles." In this court, concession booths had been set up for the exchange of money because the people had to pay a Temple tax and anyone who had some foreign currency had to have it exchanged. And then when they got into the temple Annas also had a monopoly in the sale of sacrificial animals because the Old Testament law required that any sacrifice be without spot and blemish. So a man would leave home and go to the Passover bringing his own sacrifice but Annas would have animal inspectors in the court and each sacrifice had to pass the inspection before it could be offered. And naturally because these guys were such crooks, nobody’s sacrifice was good enough. And so, the suggestion was made for them to obtain an approved sacrifice which was for sale at a certain booth which would be in the Court of the Gentiles. And it would usually be sold at five times its actual value. In addition, anyone attempting to change their money there found themselves being cheated about five to one. So, Annas had a real good thing going because at the average Passover they would sacrifice a quarter of a million lambs. And Annas made so much money that the entire Temple ground became known as "The Bazaar of Annas."
So Annas and his family were the owners of the Temple Bazaar which was run in the Gentile courts which was the very place where the Gentiles were supposed to appear before God to worship and this was what Jesus had been so upset about when He flipped over the tables and told them to get all their garbage out of there. And the assumption is, that if the stalls in the Temple which Jesus had overturned were the property of Annas and his family, then no doubt Annas would have used his position to arrange that Jesus should be brought before him first, so he could gloat over the downfall of what he considered to be this presumptuous Galilean.
Only John mentions this “hearing” before Annas probably because he was the only one of the disciples there and also because he knew all these people. And then we also see that John wants us to know that Caiaphas, before whom Jesus will actually stand trial, is a judge who has already made up his mind before the trial even began. In verse 14 it says, “Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.” And so, as far as Caiaphas was concerned Jesus was going to die and all they had to work out now was the why.
And then we switch over to the courtyard see Peter’s first denial
in verses 15-18. It says, “Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) But Simon Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not!” (Now the slaves and the officers were standing around a charcoal fire they had made, warming themselves because it was cold. Peter was standing with them, warming himself too.)
Now, this tells us that every one of the Lord’s disciples with the exception of John and Peter had run for their lives and we are told here that Peter and “another disciple” followed Jesus to the palace of Annas and it’s assumed that the other disciple was John because this other disciple was said to have been acquainted with the high priest. Since John’s father had a fairly successful fishing business then he might have been the one who brought fresh fish to the home of high priest.
So, John being known by everyone there was able to get Peter into the courtyard by speaking to the slave girl who would have been the doorkeeper and indicated that Peter was with him. So, she let him in but something caused her to question Peter and she asks the question in a way that supposes Peter will say no when she says, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” And without even thinking, Peter gave her the answer she seemed to expect when he said, “I am not!” And I think this happened so fast that Peter may hardly have realized how much trouble these few words would cause. So, she seemed to accept Peter’s denial and then John goes on in verse 18 to describe the setting more fully. It was obviously cold that night, and there was a charcoal fire burning in the courtyard and there were a few who were warming themselves around this fire. There might have even been some of the slaves and a few of the temple officers who had been in the garden. And it says that Peter was there by the fire with them, warming himself.
I say that because the term “officers” here is the same one used in 18:3 for the “officers” who came out with the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus and they were the temple police. So, Peter is in a very awkward and dangerous situation because he’s surrounded by the very men who had just arrested Jesus.
I’ve heard a few sermon that Peter’s presence at this charcoal fire has inspired, and I’m not altogether convinced by some of the points that were made about Peter warming himself by the enemy’s fire because the message made was that this was supposed to warn us about getting too friendly with the world. It’s a point well taken but here, I think we need to give Peter credit for being in a dangerous situation because the things he had done earlier in the evening had really drawn attention to himself. And since some of those who were standing around the fire might have been involved in the Jesus’ arrest, they could have easily recognized Peter as the guy who cut off Malchus’ ear. So, I don’t think we can call Peter a coward and as far as warming himself around the enemy’s fire, if you or I were there we would be trying to stay warm as well.
I think John is simply setting the scene for Peter’s next denial, which we’ll get to in verses 25-27 because the same people who are standing around the fire in verse 18 are the same ones who begin to question Peter about his relationship to Jesus in verses 25-27.
But, here John goes back to the interrogation of Jesus in verses 19-24 where it says, “While this was happening, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus replied, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. Look, these know what I said.” When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby slapped him and said, “Is this the way you answer the high priest?”
And this officer was a typical guy who was probably looking for a promotion. The Greek word for "struck...with the palm of his hand," is rhapisma, and can also be translated, "struck with a stick." Since the Temple police carried sticks or clubs, it is more likely that he hit Jesus across the side of His face with a club which of course wasn’t legal. It was never legal for someone to strike a prisoner. And yet, there is something even more significant about this verse because Micah 5:1 says, "...they shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek" and basically the officer was fulfilling prophecy. Then we see Jesus’ response in verse 23 where it says, "Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?" He was calm and in control compared to everyone else who was in the room. And then we see Caiaphas in verse 24 where it says, “Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest."
Now, the words, “while this was happening,” in verse 19 are significant because they tell us that the questioning of Peter by the slave girl and the interrogation of Jesus are both taking place at the same time. And John chooses to alternate between one scene and the other in order to compare Jesus’ response to the questions He’s facing to those of Peter. And we all know that Peter fails, while our Lord stands fast.
And the very nature of the questions that were asked by Annas reveal what he was all about. In verse 19 it says, “The high priest therefore questioned Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching.” It was obvious that the real issue behind the trial of Jesus is that of jealousy. The Jewish religious leaders were jealous of Jesus’ prestige, His popularity, and no doubt of His miraculous power. And so Annas asks Him first about His disciples because I think he was more concerned about the number of people who were following Jesus than what He was teaching.
And we notice that Jesus carefully avoids any reference to His disciples probably to protect them and there was no need to question Him about His teaching because as He said He had spoken publicly, so if they really wanted to know what He had to say, all they had to do was to ask those who heard Him. After all, He only had one message and it was for whoever wanted to listen.
There is an important legal issue here because this hearing was actually illegal. William Barclay writes, “One curious feature of legal procedure in the Sanhedrin was that the man involved was held to be absolutely innocent, and, indeed, not even on trial, until the evidence of the witnesses had been stated and confirmed. The argument about the case could only begin when the testimony of the witnesses was given and confirmed. That is the point of the conversation between Jesus and Annas in verses 19-21. Jesus in that incident was reminding Annas that he had no right to ask him anything until the evidence of witnesses had been taken and found to agree.”
And it was because this interrogation was illegal that Jesus responded the way He did to Annas in verse 21 and said, “Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; behold these know what I said.” You see, the Jewish justice system was like ours, in that nobody can be forced to testify against himself. And that’s what Annas was trying to get Jesus to do. And when He refused to respond to this kind of questioning one of the officers who stood by struck Him and this man was probably just acting out of habit because as far as he was concerned the high priest was the law.
John records Jesus’ response to Annas because Annas was the most powerful religious leader in Jerusalem at the time and he thinks that by using or abusing his authority, he could force Jesus to testify against Himself, thereby making a case for Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin but Annas gets absolutely nothing from Jesus because He refuses to answer any questions and assist him in making an illegal case. And as this interview comes to a conclusion, we find that while Annas hasn’t been able to indict Jesus for anything that Jesus has indicted him not only for wrongfully conducting this trial but also for allowing the guard to strike Him. I think Annas wanted everyone to see how smart he was but all he got out of Jesus was a rebuke for his abuse of power and for breaking Jewish law in the way he handled this case.
And then we see Peter’s second and third denials in verses 25-27. “Meanwhile Simon Peter was standing in the courtyard warming himself. They said to him, “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” Peter denied it and said, “I am not!” One of the high priest’s slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” So Peter denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.”
Now, as the spotlight shifts back to Peter it’s obvious that Peter is not doing so well. His first denial in verse 17 doesn’t seem to have alarmed him and then we see where John takes us back to where he left us in verse 18 to the fire, where everybody’s standing around trying to get or stay warm. And we notice that as everybody was thinking about what happened that night, they ask Peter the same question and in the same way which tells us they expected a negative answer. And let’s face it, who would ever think that one of Jesus’ disciples would be warming himself around a fire with a bunch of guys who were involved in Jesus’ arrest.
Well, Peter already committed himself and now he finds it necessary to repeat his denial. And so when he was asked about his relationship with Jesus, the question is phrased in a way that assumes it wasn’t him and when he responds things begin to escalate.
We are told that one of the high priest’s slaves who was a relative of Malchus thinks differently. He might have been standing close to Malchus when Peter drew his sword and cut off his ear because he says, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” So, he was there when the arrest was made and he knew that Peter was there, too. He was sure of it and we know this because his question changes and unlike the first two times when Peter was expected to answer no, this guy asks in a way that he expects a yes answer but Peter decides to stick to his story, and he denies his relationship to Jesus for the third time and immediately, a rooster crows.
We’re going to stop there but let me just close by pointing out a couple of lessons from Peter’s experience. And the first thing I want you to see is that Peter’s failure is very similar to the other disciples. Don’t forget that he and John were in the courtyard but the rest of them were no where to be seen. And so, in a sense, Peter and John may have been the “best of a bad bunch.” And just like Peter we all need to ask ourselves, how many opportunities have you and I had to share our testimony or defend the word of God and we decided to be quiet? Maybe we are not that different from Peter.
And second, we also notice that Peter’s failure was progressive. He failed by degrees over a period of time because each step in his failure led to the next and each step, in and of itself, didn’t seem to be so bad. First, he bragged he wouldn’t do it, then he did it in front of a servant girl and then he did in front of a crowd at the fire and then he did by cursing and swearing.
This tells us that sin never keeps still. The thing that felt so good yesterday won’t be satisfied unless we add to it today. There’s no such thing as a feeling of contentment with sin. We can no more satisfy ourselves with sin than we can satisfy a fire. The only answer with a fire is to put it out and the only answer to sin is repentance.
