The Gospel of John Lesson 81 (07-27-14) John 18:33-19:6

The Gospel of John Lesson 81 (07-27-14)

Lesson 81 – John 18:33-19:6

Having now seen and talked to Jesus and having discussed the matter in more detail with His accusers, Jn. 18:28-32, Pilate begins to perceive that there is more to this situation than meets the eye. His sixth sense tells him now to think bigger with his questioning and ask some questions that might be somewhat out of the box or maybe even paranormal.

Over a period of time he has watched this thing with Jesus and Israel as a nation who were represented by their religious leaders. He perceives that there may be forces at work here that may not be easily explained. Even though Pilate is a political man and out of habit would make his decisions generally on a political basis here he is found to be curios concerning the unusual details found in this situation.

Pilate enters the judgment hall in v. 33 and begins by asking Jesus a sensible and pertinent question considering the situation at hand. He asks Jesus directly if He Himself claims to be the king of the Jews. Of course, this is a relevant question. We know that when the Magi had shown up in Jerusalem sometime after Jesus’ birth looking for the prophesied King that had been born, that the king at that time in Jerusalem, King Herod, an ancestor of the King Herod found during Pilate’s reign, was very concerned and actually threatened, taking the magi’s statement concerning the newborn King very serious.

But, the circumstances were different here before Pilate. When Jesus had arrived on the scene as a baby His birth was accompanied by many signs and celestial wonders. Seeing the things that the King Herod of that time saw he had every right to be threatened and/or concerned. But, this was not the case concerning Jesus the man standing here alone before Pilate the Governor.

Pilate saw no threat in Jesus the man standing here all alone with no apparent following. In reality, Pilate was in all probability wondering what all the hub bub was about. This is evident in the apparent frustration that we see Pilate express in v. 35. Pilate knew that it was for envy and self-interest that the religious leaders handed Jesus over to him, Mt. 27:18. Eventually we will see Pilate use this line of reasoning in Jn. 19: 5 to attempt to bring the Jewish leaders to their senses displaying Jesus beaten and buffeted telling them to “Behold the man” giving them a visual example that Jesus could not possible be a threat to anyone.

In v. 33 Pilate asks Jesus if He claimed to be the King of the Jews. Many Bible commentators believe that in asking Jesus the question that Pilate had actually pulled Jesus aside bringing Him closer to him, away from earshot of the crowd, to have a more private conversation with Him looking for a way to deal with this situation and save face at the same time.

Jesus’ reply in v. 34 to this question is somewhat confusing and could be interpreted in a number of ways. However, it appears that what is meant by His reply was more like, “What gave you the idea that I was coming to fight against you or your government? Did I make any claim to this, did I do something to make you think this, or, did you ask me this question because of their accusations or claims against Me?”

In v. 35 Pilate appears to be offended by Jesus’ question and responds as if to say, “Don’t be ridiculous. Am I a Jew? It was your people that brought you here. I didn’t come searching for you.” In other words, Pilate tells Jesus that this is a little matter to him, that was more of a local Jewish matter and that he did not take Jesus’ claim to be a king to be any threat.

At the end of v. 35 Pilate ends up asking the obvious question. “What did you do?” By this time, Pilate being caught between a rock and a hard place is totally baffled as to what to do. But, in vs. 36 and 37 Jesus gives Pilate something to think about. He tells Pilate that although He is no threat to Pilate or his government at this time that He is indeed a King, and, actually tells Pilate that He is indeed the One that was to come, the Prophesied One who was to be the King of the Jews. Later we will see Pilate use this inscription “King of the Jews” placing it above Jesus while He was on the Cross, not as an acknowledgment of who he believed Jesus was, but more as a scorn, more of an in your face to the Jews, saying, “So, this is your savior, your King? Take a good look at what we did with him!”

However, for now, Jesus tells Pilate that His kingdom is not of this present world system, and, that it is not His time to be a threat to him. He tells Pilate that the proof that He is no threat is that he can see that He is not amassing an army at this time to do battle with him, or, anyone else for that matter, Jn. 18:36.

Now Pilate is completely puzzled. Jesus’ statement in v. 36 made no sense to him at all. Pilate understood what Jesus was saying in that it was not His plan or intention to cause or lead an insurrection at that time and that the proof of what He was saying was that He had no followers poised to rescue Him and begin an assault. But, what he did not understand was that if Jesus was or would be a king that something had better happen soon. His, Jesus’, time for opportunity was running out.

So, in v. 37 Pilate trying to make some sense out of this matter asks Jesus the only obvious question left, “Are you a king then?” I am sure, in the moment, before Jesus made His response, that Pilate, even though frustrated with the situation, was wondering what kind of a response he would receive from Jesus. Pilate was looking for just a yes or no answer. He just wanted to slap a band aid on the problem and be done with this. But, things aren’t always so simple in life, especially when it comes to eternal matters…especially if Jesus is involved.

Jesus challenges Pilate with His answer. He responds to Pilate with the comment that Pilate had made, the statement that Jesus was a king, and in turn forced Pilate to think about who he really thought Jesus was. Before this response by Jesus, Pilate was ambivalent in the matter concerning who Jesus really was. To Pilate, it really did not matter to him. All he had wanted to do was to be done with this matter.

But, Jesus challenges Pilate to think about the matter at hand and not just make a routine political decision in the situation at hand. As things progress, in the end this challenge will make Pilate make a conscious decision that he is responsible for concerning Jesus. Jesus tells him that he, Pilate, had actually made the statement that He was a king and makes it plain that it was His destiny to be a King and to be where He was standing in front of him, Pilate, at that time.

But, Jesus adds one more thing. He tells Pilate that He did not just come to be a King, but in actuality the purpose of His coming was to reveal and proclaim what the truth of life was. We see that Jesus’ comment here pushed a button inside of Pilate getting Pilate’s attention. He responds quickly to Jesus’ statement as if a knee jerk reaction, reacting suddenly and somewhat dramatically. Jesus’ statement was a topic that in Pilate’s world had no relevance.

However, you can tell by the way he responded that Jesus had touched his conscious making him actually think about the reality of life, his actions and the decision that he was about to make. From this point on Pilate was not on auto pilot concerning making decisions in this matter. Jesus had raised the bar of awareness for responsibility for Pilate. As far as justice goes, Pilate knew that he could not just rubber stamp this affair now. He now understood that truth mattered and that maybe there was some sense of accountability here. This was a reality that Pilate was not happy with. Apparently, Jesus’ statement bothered him.

He responds with a statement that is meant as a dodge to the reality that he has just now been faced with. He responds to Jesus by saying, “What is truth anyway.” Pilate now leaves Jesus to go out to the mob and makes a statement that may have possibly now been tempered with a touch of conscious responsibility. He tells the mob that he finds no fault in Jesus at all, realizing maybe for the first time in a long time that he actually has a moral responsibility in this matter.

Read Jn. 18:39-19:3 In v. 39, after telling the mob that he finds no fault in Jesus, Pilate again tries to somehow reason with them attempting to hopefully spark some sense of reason in the matter. There is a lot that continues to happen at this time as things continues to progress. Other Gospel accounts add details that are significant.

In chapter 23 of the book of Luke in v. 14 Pilate tells the mob that he has thoroughly examined Jesus from every angle concerning the charges, examining Him publicly and not in secret, and has found Him blameless. Pilate goes on to say in v. 15 of Like telling them that he had even sent Jesus to King Herod to be examined, remember that the mob had accompanied Jesus there, and Herod had also nothing worthy of passing the sentence of death upon Him.

One thing to remember here as things unfold is that it is Pilate’s position, job and duty to protect the innocent. Pilate has no doubt that Jesus is completely innocent. He is now also since his conversation with Jesus concerning ‘truth’ fully conscious of his actions and judgments whether they are willfully being made being right or willfully being made being wrong. This decision will have eternal significance for Pilate as the representative for the Gentile world, Pilate being their/our representative.

Pilate makes what will be a last ditch effort to divert the mob away from their fixed determined direction. Knowing that what is in the works concerning Jesus is completely unjust he again attempts to reason with the mob attempting to bring them to their senses. But, to no avail. He offers them a choice between Barabbas and Jesus. Barabbas was a known criminal and murder, one that had committed insurrection against the Roman government and actually was worthy of the judgment of death under Roman law (Mk. 15:7). Jesus, however, was found by Pilate to have no fault. Pilate thought that the choice between the two would be obvious.

Somewhere at this time (Mt. 27:19), while Pilate was seated on the judgment seat, Pilate’s wife had sent unto Pilate a message warning him not to have anything to do with this matter concerning Jesus, that she had been warned in a dream with some drama in it that they, especially Pilate, should stay clear of this matter, in essence really warning Pilate that he had better be careful that he treat Jesus justly, offering a fair verdict in this matter. Again, Pilate knew that this whole matter centered around envy (Mt. 27:18), the religious leaders being envious of Jesus, knowing that Jesus was in no way worthy of the verdict of death.

Pilate after hearing this proceeds with what he thinks is a no brainier. He offers the mob what he thinks is an obvious choice. He offers them a choice between Jesus the proven innocent one having been thoroughly examined by more than one being found to have no offense, and, Barabbas, an obvious convicted murderer. Pilate even offers Jesus to them partially crucified, having been beaten, again showing that Jesus is really no threat to anyone. But to no avail. The mob cries out even the louder.

But, things are not over yet. In Jn. 19 vs. 6-8 we see further dialog that even at this point gets Pilate’s attention. They respond in v. 7 to Pilate that Jesus claimed to be not only a king, but also a God. In hearing this Pilate now again enters the Judgment Hall for even more questioning with Jesus.

He presents Jesus to them as just a man…no threat to anyone and surely not a God. However, in just moments Pilate’s image of Jesus will be greatly challenged causing him to rethink and question who he thinks this Jesus really is.

The Gospel of John Lesson 80 (07-20-14) John 18:31-2

The Gospel of John Lesson 80 (07-20-14)

Lesson 80 – John 18:31-2

As you may remember, in our last study, the Jewish leaders after trying Jesus by unjust means took Him to Pilate to carry out their sentence. A large, loud, clamorous and somewhat unruly and insistent mob accompanied Him as they went.

It was very early in the morning when they arrived at Pilate’s judgment hall. Probably being aroused by the noise, Pilate goes out to see what all the commotion is about. Seeing Jesus in the judgment hall and getting very little to nothing in response from Him he leaves the judgment hall and goes out to discuss the matter with the mob which included the Sanhedrin. The atmosphere is tense. Pilate knows that the situation could become serious very quickly if not handled right. Matthew records later in Mt. 27:24 that this situation did indeed escalate to the point of almost becoming a riot forcing Pilate to take actions that he didn’t intend to take. This is not what he wanted to wake up to.

In meeting the group Pilate asks them what this was all about, Jn. 18:29-30. Having already seen Jesus I am sure that he already had a pretty good idea of what was happening. Their response is an interesting one. It is like the response of a child that wants something, but does not have a good reason for it.

They tell Pilate in essence to just trust their judgment. They have already evaluated the matter and that there is no need for him to be bothered with the details, he just needs to act on their verdict and carry out their sentence.

But, Pilate knew different. He had seen this group in action before and he knew that they could not be trusted in a matter such as this just on their word. In v. 31, Pilate does what could be termed as the safe thing, at least for him. Although it is likely that he had not figured out all of the details as yet, he knew enough to know that it was best to steer clear if at all possible of this matter. He knew that it would be best for him not to get involved. At this point he decided that it was best for him and his political future if he would just let them deal with it and he would manage the situation from afar.

In v. 31 he gives them the answer that he thought would satisfy them telling them that he would not interfere in their proceedings and gives them permission to carry out their sentence. He thought that they, having his permission to act, would be able to do what they wanted, even though the sentence was unjust. He assumed that they would leave and go home to carry out the sentence.

But, Pilate’s plan did not work. He would not get off so easy. He did not realize that he was a part of God’s plan and prophesy. Jesus came to die for the world and not just Israel, and, as such it was to be that Jesus would be sentenced and rejected by both the Jewish and Gentile worlds including all people of the earth.

To his offer, the Jews gave the response that it was not lawful for them to carry out the sentence and put Jesus to death. If they had put Jesus to death it probability would have been by stoning Him. However, in refusing Pilate’s offer, the actual carrying out of His death was turned back over to a Roman world and they would use Roman means that put Jesus on a cross. This would in turn fulfill what Jesus had told His disciples in John 12:32, when He had prophesied concerning His death to His disciples saying that He would be lifted. (Read Jn. 12:32)

It is also interesting the symbolism in the Passover that identifies with Jesus dying by crucifixion. In the original Passover in Egypt they were required to apply the blood of the sacrifice to the top, the lentil, and two side posts representing Jesus on the Cross.

In Jn. 12:32 Jesus stated what form of death that He would die telling those present at the time that in His death He would be lifted up and in doing so that all would be drawn to Him. This was not a normal Jewish option in putting someone to death. This type of death was actually offensive and unlawful to the Jew. To the Jew cursed is anyone that hangs on a tree, Deut. 21:23. It is interesting that the Jews would even consider this option. Pilate meanwhile wondered how he can get out of this precarious position. However, as we will see, the more he tries to get out the more caught in this situation he gets.

It is here that most think that Pilate hearing that Jesus stirred up trouble in Galilee, Lk. 23:5, that he took the opportunity to attempt to pass this situation off to someone else and sent Jesus off to King Herod, Galilee being Herod’s jurisdiction, to examine the case, Lk. 23:6-12. 

The scene was brutal for Jesus before Herod. Although Herod was excited at the opportunity to at last get to see Jesus whom he had heard about for some time (Lk. 23:8), he became enraged at Jesus because even though he had asked Him many questions Jesus did not answer the accusations of the accompanying scribes and priests. It tells us in v. 11 of Luke 23 that Herod’s response was to have his men of war treat Jesus with contempt, and, mock Him, eventually sending Jesus back to Pilate.

So, attempting to figure this out from another direction Pilate goes back into the judgment hall to attempt to get something out of Jesus that might help him get loose from this situation. We must remember that Pilate has no integrity here. It is not his desire to see justice served in this situation. Nor did he really feel sorry for Jesus or His present position. He was doing the government thing of shifting the situation in any direction possible, laterally or otherwise, to just get out from under it. The only direction that he did not want the attention of this matter to go was up getting the wrong attention of his superiors. All of Pilates inquires and actions were self-motivated. Pilate questions Jesus further looking for a way out.

The Gospel of John Lesson 79 (07-13-14) John 18:28-31

The Gospel of John Lesson 79 (07-13-14)

Lesson 79 – John 18:28-31

Please read John 18:28-40, Matthew 27:2, 11-26, Mark 15:1-15 and Luke 23:1-24

Having gotten the verdict that they had desired before the Sanhedrin Caiaphas and the high council now take Jesus to Pilate to be sentenced. When Jesus was before the Jewish high council they had had a trial, but there was no intention of seeking justice. We find in Matthew’s Gospel, Mt. 26:59-61, that the high priest and council had looked for witnesses that they could use to convict Jesus, but in doing so they were not seeking honest testimony. Mathew tells us that they had sought false testimony. Can you imagine…the leaders of Israel…religious leaders at that? So, they willingly and knowingly used unjust means to perform another injustice in putting Jesus to death. (Mt. 23:23)

It tells us in Mathew 26 that even in looking for false testimony against Jesus that although many came forward there were none that gave the level of testimony that they could use to convict Jesus, being able to put Him to death. Matthew tells us in Mt. 26:60-1 that after much to do, that they had finally gotten two witnesses to come forward and testify against Him concerning Jesus’ statement about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days. Jesus had made that statement in reference to His death and restoring the temple, His body, meaning rising from the dead in three days. But, they were not interested in what Jesus meant concerning what He had said. All they were looking for was something that they could use to pass the judgment on Jesus that they were seeking.

Having finally gotten something that they could use against Jesus, false or not, they press the issue with Jesus further questioning Him concerning this acquisition. At first Jesus replied nothing, Mt. 26:63. But, then the high priest brought God the Father into the discussion asking Jesus to pretty much swear by God if there was any truth to what these witnesses had said.

For most, to swear by God just meant to be honest. It was something to be said to make one think twice before they make a reply. But, for Jesus to swear by the Living God was sacred. It was a vow, one not to be stated or entered into lightly. He knew the reality and seriousness of making a statement under such conditions. Of course, Jesus always made replies and statements knowing that He was making these statements in the presence of the Living God. He would never lie. His conversation and replies were always completely truthful. They had no need to make such a statement to Him.

But, from their perspective they saw Jesus as a deceiver of the people and in saying this they were warning Him, using what they perceived as their authority and false assumption concerning their connection to God, to make Jesus give a reply clear enough and straightforward enough that they could use it against Him. They had backed Jesus into a corner so to speak. They knew that if He gave them a clear straightforward reply to this that to them, according to their law, they would have what they were looking for, having grounds to sentence Him to death.

Again, in the past, Jesus’ reply, although answering or addressing their question, would not be the reply that they were looking for. In the past He would answer them honestly of course, but in doing so He would not give them what they were looking for. Most often He would answer their question with a question or statement that would turn the tables back on them.

But, not this time. Jesus knew that this was His time to obey the Father and go to the Cross. This time He gives them what they wanted and in v. 64 of Matthew 26 Jesus makes a clear statement that He will be seated in God’s throne with the Father and gives them a warning that they should heed this statement because He will eventually come back to them in judgment. It is significant that He tells them that He will be seated and on God’s throne. They understood that this meant King and Victor. It was not the current position that they saw Him in.

However, now they had what they were looking for. Jesus had now made a definite statement with witnesses present. Now they had something to use to pass the sentence of death upon Him according to their law. Now having the proof that they were looking for they could proceed.

But, just one thing, they could not, or, at least would not, carry out that sentence themselves. While Israel was in captivity it was not at all a common practice to put someone to death even if they had offended the law. This situation was tricky. Although Jesus was indeed God and had not, in reality, offended the Jewish Law, they did not recognize Him as such and because of this passed judgment on Him that He was an offender of the Law in the worst way. If the charge had been true, blasphemy would have been punishable by death according to the Law. However, in carrying out this sentence, there was a problem. They were captors and under Roman rule they could not act on their law without permission.

But, for the Jewish leaders this was convenient. They knew that they had passed judgment on Jesus with a trumped up charge and although they would be as guilty as anyone else involved, they rationalized that passing Jesus off to the Romans to do the dirty work would distance them from the act of putting Jesus to death unjustly. Later, caught in the moment, arguing with Pilate about carrying out Jesus’ sentence, they would be forced to renege on their position telling Pilate that they would take responsibility if he would pass sentence on Jesus to be crucified, Matt 27:24-5.

So now, early in the morning, following the trial and sentencing of Jesus by Caiaphas and the religious leaders escort Jesus bound to Pilate with the intent of getting Pilate to carry out their judgment. Remember it is early in the morning. It is assumed quite early. In all likelihood Pilate would have still been in bed, that is, if it was a night that he would have happened to be able to sleep.

We must remember that Pilate was in a difficult and very stressful position. It was a no win position. He was stuck in a position sandwiched between two groups of people as a governor with the impossible job of keeping balance, perspective and peace. Balance because he was in an authoritative position between two opposing powers. Perspective because he was a Roman and as such was in the position of carrying out the will of the ruling government. And peace because as Roman governor it was his job to keep the peace at all costs. The Roman higher ups were not fond of any form of uprisings or social disturbances. In Mt. 27:23 ESV Matthew tells us that the situation was extremely tense, on the verge of a riot. Any such incident that caught the attention of the upper ruling class would not have been to Pilate’s advantage. It was a difficult position, probably one that quite frequently cost him a good night’s sleep.

It appears from the Gospel accounts that there must have been a rather large crowd accompanying Jesus to Pilate. It seems in all likelihood that the crowd was growing as time passed even this early in the morning. At any rate they were not a quiet situation. It was a demanding crowd, and, they were really not concerned about Pilate getting the right amount of sleep.

So Pilate being summoned to the judgment hall early in the morning was in all likelihood wondering what all of the ruckus was. It is possible that he already knew that this proceeding was already in the works possibly being forewarned by his soldiers who were keeping watch over Jerusalem. At any rate, it is a little sketchy as to the setting at this time, but it appears that Pilate enters the judgment hall and sees Jesus wondering why He is there.

It is unclear who escorted Jesus into the judgment hall. John tells us in v. 28 of John 18 that although Jesus was taken to the hall of judgment, presumably entering the judgment hall, that the high priest and the other religious leaders that were with him would not go into the judgment hall because in doing so they would be defiled and would not be able to observe and eat the Passover. This was an interesting perspective. They did not want to offend the Law in going into the judgment hall and yet they already offended the Law, specifically one of the Ten Commandments, in bringing in false witnesses to testify against Jesus.

So, Pilate entering the judgment hall and sees Jesus while hearing the commotion outside. Jesus in all probability did not saying too much at this time. The Scriptures tell us that He was silent a good bit of the time when questioned. We are not told if Pilate is told anything in the judgment hall, he now leaves the hall and goes out to the mob to try and gain some perspective on the matter, Jn. 18:28-9. Complicated situation.

But, Pilate by this time had already figured out the whole situation and what was going down. It tells us in both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels that Pilate had already figured out that their charge was trumped up and was really motivated by jealousy and envy more than substance or fact, Mt. 27:18, Mk. 15:10.

However, when Pilate questions them they give an interesting response. Their response is like a kid that wants something, but does not want you to know the real reason behind their request. They tell him in essence in v. 30 of John 18, “Don’t you trust us? Why would you even ask us such a ridiculous question? If He wasn’t guilty would we have even brought Him here and bothered you so early in the morning?”

To that Pilate responded in v. 31 telling them that he did not want any part of this circus trial and in doing so gives them something that he thought would at least appease them. In v. 31 he tells them to go and take Him and judge Jesus according to their Law. Pilate knew that Jesus did not do anything worthy of the charge, but in doing this some would say that at this point that Pilate has already become directly involved and become their accomplice. He was handing an innocent man over to an angry mob to do with what they wish.

The Gospel of John Lesson 78 (06-22-14) John 18:12-27

The Gospel of John Lesson 78 (06-22-14)

Lesson 78 – John 18:12-27

There is tension in the air. Not only was there friction between Jesus and His followers and the religious Jewish establishment, there was also a high degree of tension between the nation Israel and the ruling class, the Romans. Things had already been tenuous between the Jews and the Romans without Jesus on the scene. The Roman government had conquered Israel and as a conquering nation had built bridges and alliances with those with Jewish connections to maintain control and keep the peace with their conquered nation.

However, even though tensions had been high prior to Jesus’ rise to prominence, and, maintaining a balance of power between these two nations was difficult at best, as Jesus had arrived on the scene tensions in all directions had been ratcheted up more than just a notch.

The Jewish religious leaders in assessing the situation had made the determination that at the present things were extremely tense and on the edge and in danger of going over the top concerning their captors. Both nations knew that if tensions between them were to get too high that the only option for the conquering nation would be to take drastic measures making changes on what they allowed Israel to do or if things got bad enough the only option left would be to take action to crush them, or crush the resistance or opposition. Not a pretty sight.

 At the very least Israel’s religious leaders believed that if things continued in the direction that they were going that the Romans would take away some of their rights to observe some of their national religious observances such as Passover and other national religious holidays. Even in their position this would be unacceptable to Israel possibly forcing them to attempt actions that they would regret.

When tensions are high the first thing to be taken away is large gatherings of any type. These observances were at the heart of Israel as a nation and would have been difficult to overlook or ignore for Israel even as a captured nation.  In saying this, however, Israel was also smart enough to know that standing on principle and taking action even on these important issues in their position would have meant certain doom for them as a nation. (Consider the First Jewish–Roman War 66–73 CE)

Caiaphas saw the handwriting on the wall and offered the only viable alternative in his opinion to direct conflict with the Romans, put the troublemaker to death and go on with living in tolerance with the ruling power. Living with Roman rule was not pleasant, but with a few concessions for the present they could make it work. Jesus had divided the Jewish people. Although His conflict was with the religious leaders of Israel, to be sure the tension did not go unnoticed by the Roman peacekeepers.

However, there was just one problem; the religious leaders knew that by law, according to them, they were not allowed to put a man to death, Jn. 18:31. Now that they had Jesus in hand this presented a problem that would take some thought if they were going to carry out their plan to get rid of Him and put Him to death and yet technically not transgress their interpretation of the law.

But, there was another mystery at work here, one that the religious leaders did not take into account. It was the time of the Passover and what Israel’s religious leaders failed to see in this situation was that God’s Passover Lamb had arrived. They had not taken into account Isaiah chapter 53 when looking at and considering this situation, nor had they taken seriously or put any credit to the declaration of John the Baptist in Jn. 1:36 when he declared Jesus the Lamb of God.

John had made it clear that Jesus was the One that was prophesied to come as a man whose sacrificial death would pay the price for the sin of many. But, their motivation was not to be a part of fulfilling God’s will and plan, but instead their motivation was to get rid of someone who threatened their authority, position and security using the excuse that it was good in the long run for the nation.

Again, it was unlawful for them, on their own, to condemn Jesus and put Him to death. It would be necessary to get someone else involved to do their dirty work. Oddly enough, the only likely candidate that would be able to assist them in this was their enemy, the Romans.

But, first Jesus must have a trial. Having secured, so they thought, Jesus, they first take Him to Annas who was the father in law of the high priest Caiaphas for interrogation and procedural council on the matter. There would be several procedural steps taken concerning the Jewish leadership involvement leading up to Jesus’ conviction and crucifixion. Oddly enough there would also be three steps concerning Roman legal involvement. In the end both the Romans and the Jews would know that what they were doing was wrong, not to mention illegal, but the Jews were determined to get rid of Jesus and the Romans found themselves with their hands tied as to their options.

After a preliminary hearing at Annas’ home a decision was made to send Jesus, leaving Him bound, to Caiaphas the high priest for further procedure and review. With Annas’ input and decision concerning Jesus the die was cast as to what direction this process and hearing would take.

However, along with this procedure other noteworthy events were happening that are recorded by John the Apostle. Apparently although most of the disciples had left Jesus after He had asked His captors to let them go, at least two of them tagged along and followed the proceedings at least from a distance.

Jesus had now been taken to the high priest Caiaphas and John tells us in Jn. 18:15 that Simon Peter and another disciple, presumably John himself, followed the process, John being known to the high priest and going in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. But, Peter remaining outside. We are not sure if Peter chose to stay outside the door to the court of the high priest or if he was not allowed to go in, but it tells us that John being known to the high priest and those associated with him was allowed to go and get Peter and bring him also in.

Simon Peter at this time had mixed emotions concerning getting too close and being associated with Jesus at this time. Even though it was evident by Peter being there not far from Jesus and the proceedings that he was concerned about what happened with Jesus, yet he was not sure that he wanted to be too close to the situation to be identified with Him. It is interesting that apparently the other disciple being known to those associated with the high priest was not as concerned about his connection with Jesus as Peter.

We remember earlier at the dinner table Peter had made a big to do about how faithful he would be to Jesus even if it would mean his life was in danger or at risk. If we were to give Peter the benefit of a doubt and say that only John was allowed to come into the court of the high priest, now John being readily known to those associated with the high priest goes to the keeper of the door and is allowed to also bring Peter in, v. 16.

However, in v. 17, Peter wishing to remain anonymous gets tagged by the keeper at the door as one of Jesus’ disciples her asking him if he was indeed one of them. We all know his response. Peter hoping not to make a scene and draw any attention to himself replies quickly that he was not a disciple of Jesus and probably hurriedly passes through the door and away from her to avoid any more questions. If he had had sunglasses this is probably where he would have put them on. However, that also would have been awkward being just before dawn. This was denial number one for Peter.

So Peter now quickly joins the company of the opposition, hoping to not be noticed, which are huddled around a fire warming themselves. In v. 19 the high priest asks Jesus some incriminating questions. He asks Him questions concerning His disciples or followers and also of His doctrine. It was His doctrine that really was at the core of this issue. He openly had claimed not only to be a spokesman for God, but had openly claimed to be God’s Son in essence making Him equal with God. If His claim were not true it would have been blasphemy and would have been grounds worthy of death. However, even though what Jesus had said was true, they did not believe it and would use this to pass judgment and sentence on Him.

Their purpose in asking Him this question in a formal hearing, even though this was a pretrial, was to have numerous witnesses hear Him claim to be God in case Jesus were to try to deny it as the hearings progressed. However, as was common and fairly customary with Jesus, He answered them in a way that frustrated them leaving them with not much to use. In v. 20 Jesus tells them that what He said concerning doctrine was said publically, nothing said in private, and that anyone there could tell them what they wanted to know if they would just ask them.

Well, this was not the answer that they were looking for. They as usual were looking for incriminating evidence being directly spoken by Jesus, and they knew that what might be considered hearsay would not do. This angered the officers that were standing nearby, so much so that one of them reflexively struck Jesus …hard, demanding that Jesus give them a verbal answer, and, for them only one answer would satisfy them.

Stop and think about it. Would you want to be one of those who physically struck God? Not good. But, their eyes were blinded at the time as to who Jesus was and in their mind it was the high priest that represented God to them and seeing it this way they took action believing that by protecting the high priest that they were standing up for the things of God. Looks can be deceiving.

The one that struck Jesus, believing that Jesus was disrespectful to the high priest and deserved to be answered with the answer that the high priest was looking for tells Jesus in an indignant tone, “Is that how you answer the high priest?. To this Jesus replies in essence telling him to think about it, that He has said nothing wrong or disrespectful. In Jesus’ reply He shows no anger, but brings perspective and reality to the situation offering His assailant a chance to exercise anger management and come to his senses.

V. 25 Meanwhile Simon Peter was hanging out with the enemy by the fire. In doing so, they recognized him and asked him the question that he was trying to avoid, “Aren’t you also one of His disciples?”  Of course, it is an obvious fact that even if Peter wanted to hang out with the right group that that would have been a little difficult, none were to be found.

Again, we must give Peter a lot of credit. It was evident that he loved His Lord being in the same room with Jesus when they were interrogating Him, intending to put Jesus to death. Anyone associated with Him could potentially be a marked man. And, also, where were the others. We see here only Peter and it is assumed John. So Peter gets a lot of credit. I am not sure that I would have been as bold as he.

However, Jesus and Peter had an understanding. Jesus knew Peter better than anyone and understood that he had a pride problem. Call it a male ego thing of wanting to be the man…the I’m the best, I can do it… man thing. Jesus knew that to establish His Church that this perspective would not do. The Church was not to be founded on the principles if power, might and dominance. Peter needed to know what he was capable of, that he could deny Christ as easy as anyone else, and that he needed a Savior as much as anyone.

In v. 25 Peter gets questioned a second time concerning his association as a disciple of Jesus which this time he makes a statement that is more firm and definite stating that he was indeed not associated with Jesus. If we are counting, and Jesus, and, I might add that in all probability Peter, was counting also, this was denial number two. It is my opinion that Peter was fully aware of the process and what was happening here. He and Jesus had a memorable and clear conversation on this matter and I believe that Peter gave his reply to those there fully aware that in doing so that this was denial number two concerning His conversation with Jesus.

It is interesting that the first two denials came from questions that were phrased with some wiggle room in them where Peter could deny the association by giving the implication that it was a case of mistaken identity. However, in vs. 26 and 27 of chapter 18 Peter is positively I. D. by a relative of the man that Peter cut off the ear of. There was no wiggle room in this one. Peter knowing this one would be the one that puts him over the top, knowing that in doing so that there is no way to deny that he had failed Jesus in this matter, denies immediately getting confirmation by it being the time of the cock’s crow. Some have argued the point whether the cock actually crowed at that time or that it was the time of the cocks crow. I won’t argue the point, but at any rate Peter knew what time it was and that he had let his Lord down. oqwHowevewr