Enduring Injustice with Grace

Notes from the message:

1. Jesus Delivered to the Jewish Authorities 18:12–14.

12-14] — Roman procedure followed by the Roman soldiers would be to pull Jesus’ arms behind His back, then placing them in irons or binding them tightly with rope. He most likely remained bound in such a manner with a noose around His neck throughout His ordeal. He was then taken to the highest Jewish power in Israel, Annas. It was Caiaphas who officially held the office of high priest. However, many recognized his father-in-law, Annas, as the true authority in Jerusalem as well as the final voice in every matter concerning the temple.

During the first century, the office of high priest in Israel was akin to being king: however, his appointment was only with Roman approval and then his governing was under the authority of the Roman procurator.

Who is Annas?

Appointed high priest in AD 6 by Quirinius and was deposed by Valerius Gratus in AD 15.

Headed up what became a vast empire of organized corruption in Jerusalem, wielding power through his son, Eliazar, his son-in-law Caiaphas, followed by four more sons and a grandson in succession as high priests in Jerusalem.

held monopoly on animals deemed acceptable for sacrifice in the temple, which he sold “in the four famous ‘booths of the sons of Annas’ on the Mount of Olives, with a branch within the precincts of the temple itself” (ISBE, 1:128). The Law of Moses, said the priests were to determine which animals were of the quality to be sacrificed. Who controlled the priests? Annas.

The cleansing of the temple by Jesus recorded in Matthew 21 was unimaginable to the several religious authorities in that one man would challenge the Annas crime family without the backing of someone immensely powerful. Upon their discovery that Jesus was acting alone, they began their plot to seize Him.

2. The First Denial of Peter, 18:15–18.

15-18] — We know from other gospel accounts that the disciples scattered at Jesus’ arrest, yet two did not go far. Simon Peter was following Jesus and so was “another disciple.”

Who was this disciple who was “known” to the high priest. It most likely was John. We need to remember that John (and James) came from a family of wealth and social status, which may have given him access to the courtyard of the residence. John was “known,” but Peter was not. It took John to return to the doorkeeper and speak to her, before Peter was permitted to enter the courtyard.

The question posed by the slave-girl gave Peter an easy out to the question. In the situation he found himself in, it was a chance to proclaim his allegiance to Jesus. But Peter revealed that he feared the question of the slave-girl. His response shows that Peter acted as an outsider, not one who had been given access to the Messiah.

The picture of the events illustrates the choice Peter made. He joined himself with others around a charcoal fire to stand close and warm himself together with them — an image that is intended to express communion, fellowship, even intimacy. Ironic in that in the not too distant past he was attacking the same servants. All this while at the same time Jesus, his Lord, was being treated like an outsider and physically abused. Peter’s opportunity to witness to Christ was an anti-witness, a denial. But Jesus is not done with Peter; by the end of John’s Gospel, Peter will be warming himself around another “charcoal fire.”

3. The Witness of Christ and His Disciples, 18:19–24.

19-21] — This former high priest, the real power behind the high priest starts questioning Jesus about His disciples and His teaching. The illegality of this and the following trials is the point in the Gospels. Jewish tradition was very careful in its regulation of the conduct of criminal trials.

No trial could be held at night or in secret.

The “Hall of Judgment” was the only proper place to hear criminal trials.

The accused could not be compelled to testify in his own case.

All charges had to be sustained by multiple collaborating witnesses.

The presiding judge may not examine a witness, or the accused.

Annas broke the rules, pushing Jesus that he might hear something incriminating. Jesus pointed out proper procedure, having nothing to hide since He spoke in places where Jews had gathered. Multitudes had heard Him. According to Jewish custom, conflicting testimonies could not condemn the accused, only acquit him. Jesus, by asking Annas to question those who heard Him, knew that a fair polling of witnesses would either exonerate Him of all charges or cancel the false testimony of the religious leaders.

22-24] — Brutality was not permitted in the courtroom, yet one of the guards stepped in front of Jesus and punched His face. Jesus maintained perfect composure and responded with a reasonable request. He said, in effect, “If My objection should be overruled, state the legal precedent. If it should be sustained, I should not be punished for being right.”

Having established the fact that no one had testified against Him and that He wasn’t guilty of anything more than allowing Annas to make a fool of himself, the old high priest had nothing more to say. Clearly, the object of the trial was not to discover truth; that is why Jesus had refused to cooperate. Without another word, “Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas” (18:24). He had hoped Jesus would make things easier by implicating Himself, but the Lord deftly applied the Sanhedrin’s own rules of jurisprudence—and He had the truth on His side.

4. The Second and Third Denials of Peter, 18:25–27.

25-27] — Meanwhile, Peter was with the others, standing and warming himself by the fire. Those around him asked if he was also one of Jesus’ disciples and He denied it again, acting as if he were an outsider to the transpiring events.

But now another slave, one who is a personal slave of the high priest and is related to Malchus, the man whose ear was cut off by Peter. This was a more authoritative and personal question then the first two. The one asking personally witnessed Peter represent and defend Jesus in the garden.

Peter’s response was quick; the denial firm followed immediately by the voice of a rooster, just as Jesus had predicted.

John 13:36–38 NASB95

Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, where are You going?” Jesus answered, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.” Peter said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.” Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.

Thankfully this is not the end of Peter, even though he misunderstood Jesus’ person and work, and had failed to witness to Jesus and his relationship to Him.