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.
No comments:
Post a Comment