Trials and denials. John 18:15-27

John 18:15-27

There are 2 main events in this section; Peter’s denial and Jesus on trial before Annas. These are happening at the same time, and that’s how John records it. But I want to discuss the trial first and then deal with Peter’s denials together.

Vs 19-24
-Does anyone see a contradiction in this section? There seems to be a contradiction concerning who is the High Priest. This was a position held by one person. So is it Annas or Caiaphas? It’s important that we investigate alleged contradictions in the scriptures since this is a reason more and more are giving for rejecting it’s authority.
At this time the High Priest was the highest office of respect and authority allowed in Israel. This being the case, the Roman governors and procurators decided who would hold this office. Annas was named HP by Quirinius in 7 AD. But the next procurator, Valerius Gratus didn’t like Annas and gave him the boot in 15 AD. Annas was an excellent politician and through diplomacy and probably some shady deals he was able to secure the HP office for all 5 of his sons and his son-in-law. That’s Caiaphas. These guys were just puppets. Annas no longer had the official title but he made all the decisions and he was still commonly called the High Priest. So, there is no contradiction and John knows exactly what he is saying. Caiaphas has the title, but is only a puppet to Annas, whom everyone sees as the actual High Priest. As a side note, his son Annas II had James put to death.


Now, about the actual trial. The people in charge don’t always get it right.
Acting on a tip, the Ontario Provincial Police broke down the door of a house in suburban Toronto. It was the middle of the night. They rushed into the bedrooms with guns drawn, and literally dragged the occupants out of bed. They forced a man, his wife, her aged father, and a couple of children to lay face down on the living room floor for a couple of hours. All of them were dressed or undressed for bed, cold, and scared. The police searched through their house for the criminal they had come to arrest. In fact, the house was ransacked and generally torn apart in the search for evidence. The police never did find anything linking the family to the criminal in question. It turned out the police were at the wrong house.
When the police rather shamefacedly left, the family never got an apology for being wrongfully terrorized. Rather, the police threatened to lay charges against them because a small package of a controlled/illegal substance had been found in their basement.
That’s a case where the authorities got it wrong, but it was on accident. What’s even worse is when the authorities are dead wrong and you find out it was on purpose. It’s disappointing and sickening when you hear a story of the people in charge actually purposefully trying to frame an innocent person. Like this:
In November 1988 a Joseph Burrows was arrested for the murder of an 88-year-old man in Sheldon, Illinois. No physical evidence was found to link Burrows to the killing, but he was convicted on the basis of testimony from two people who said they saw Burrows do the shooting. Burrows was convicted and sentenced to die. He spent more than 6 years on Death Row.
Burrows' defense attorney persuaded the judge to rehear the testimony of the two witnesses. Both of them took back their earlier testimony and said that police and prosecutors pressured them into testifying falsely against Burrows. Eventually, one of the witnesses even admitted to the murder.

-The trial of Jesus is a one of the disturbing cases where the authorities are so corrupt and concerned with maintaining their own power that they throw all decency out the window. According to Jewish law nobody can be arrested without formal charges. Jesus is arrested under no specific charges. According to the Torah, the highest Jewish law, no trial could happen without witnesses. Jesus points this out in sort of a sarcastic cutting way. Jesus points out their lack of witnesses by sarcastically telling them to “ask all your witnesses.” His tone was probably part of why the guard slapped him. I’m not sure why we assume Jesus always spoke as though he were thinking about something really sad, and with an English accent.
The charge Annas was trying to secretly get evidence for was heresy/blasphemy. Think about it. He doesn’t question him about what he did, where he went or any of his actions. He could have questioned Jesus about his relationship with the women who followed him, or taxes, or anything else we would consider more worthy of death than what he was questioned about. He questions him about his disciples and his teachings. The Bible talks about the severity of being a false prophet and that’s what they were trying to manufacture evidence about. Being a false prophet (speaking falsely on behalf of God) was the worst crime to be accused of and was more likely to bring the death penalty than others.
As a side note, thought, what does that say about how Jesus lived that even those who wanted him dead knew they wouldn’t be able to make up any questionable behavior and have it believed?
It’s interesting to me that through this entire process Jesus, knowing the verdict is going to be guilty, continually asks them for evidence. Why would he do this? It wasn’t in hopes that they would realize he was innocent and let him go. So, why?

Peter’s Denial: 15-18, 25-27
-It is most likely and commonly accepted that John is the other disciple. John shows great humility in that when he has the chance to write, “me me me, I was there” he instead writes, “another disciple” or “the disciple Jesus loved”.
This is one of the events so huge that all 4 gospel writers include it in their history. But John leaves out something the other 3 say. The others end this account with Peter going outside and weeping bitterly. The other 3 weren’t there, John was. Even Matthew, who was there for most events he writes, was not at this one. They got their info second hand, probably from Peter, who told the story in a way that emphasized his regret.
What impressed John as he was seeing it first-hand, though, was not Peter’s regret but the severity of Peter’s change. The way John tells his story he really emphasizes how Peter went from being willing to take on a small army by himself to cowering in front of slaves and servants. John probably heard Peter’s first denial and would have been shocked beyond belief.
Why is John so focused on the quick change in Peter? Is he angry or ashamed? Probably. But I think the bigger emotion is fear. Peter is known among the disciples as the bold one, the brave one, the leader. I think what’s so shocking to John about this is the thought, “If Peter can deny Jesus…can I?” To be clear, this is my opinion, but I think it’s worth considering. Regardless of whether or not John is thinking this, we should. We often think “How is it possible that Peter could do this?” when we should be thinking, “Is it possible that I could do this?”