← Back to sermon library

Well, please turn with me in 
your Bibles to John's Gospel. We're in John chapter 18. John chapter 18, we're back to 
the passion proper after a long section of teaching by our Lord 
Jesus in the upper room discourse in chapters 13 to 16, and then 
His high priestly prayer in chapter 17. We get back into the narrative 
concerning Jesus' arrest and then His subsequent trials. So 
we're gonna read beginning in chapter 18 at verse 12, and I'll 
read to verse 27. So beginning in John 18 at verse 
12, Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient 
that one man should die for the people. And Simon Peter followed Jesus 
and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to 
the high priest and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the 
high priest. But Peter stood at the door outside. 
Then the other disciple who was known to the high priest went 
out and spoke to her who kept the door and brought Peter in. 
Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, you are 
not also one of this man's disciples, are you? He said, I am not. Now the servants and officers 
who had made a fire of coals stood there, for it was cold 
and they warmed themselves. And Peter stood with them and 
warmed himself. The high priest then asked Jesus 
about his disciples and his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spoke openly 
to the world. I always taught in synagogues 
and in the temple where the Jews always meet. And in secret, I 
have said nothing. Why do you ask me? Ask those 
who have heard me what I said to them. Indeed, they know what 
I said. And when he had said these things, 
one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm 
of his hand, saying, Do you answer the high priest like that? Jesus 
answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. 
But if well, why do you strike me? Then Annas sent him bound 
to Caiaphas the high priest. Now Simon Peter stood and warmed 
himself. Therefore they said to him, You 
are not also one of his disciples, are you? He denied it and said, 
I am not. One of the servants of the high 
priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, did 
I not see you in the garden with him? Peter then denied again 
and immediately a rooster crowed. Amen. Well, let us pray. Our 
father in heaven, we thank you for your written word. We know 
it's given by inspiration of God that it's profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. And as we come now, to this arrest 
and this trial of our blessed Savior cause us to reflect upon 
what He has done on behalf of needy sinners. We thank you that 
in the fullness of the time you sent forth your Son, born of 
a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law. 
And as John tells us, this Word became flesh. This Word is indeed 
the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. We see 
how that comes to fruition and fulfillment in these latter chapters 
in John's gospel. So we pray the Spirit would guide 
us now, to lead us into all truth, that we would indeed know the 
joy of our salvation and the blessedness of the Savior himself. We pray for any and all here 
that are dead in their trespasses and sins, that you would awaken 
them, show them their sin, show them their need for the Redeemer, 
and show them the great love wherewith God loves sinners. 
We ask that you would forgive us now and cleanse us from all 
unrighteousness, and we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, as 
I said, we come back to the actual passion narrative of our Lord 
Jesus. So last week we saw Jesus arrested 
in the garden in chapter 18, verses 1 to 11. And so this morning 
we're going to see the trial before the Jews. Now, when you 
look at what we call the synoptic gospels, that's Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke, they look at the same thing in pretty much the same 
way. John differs, not in terms of contradiction or other material, 
but from looking at it from different vantage points. But when you 
read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they have no trial before Annas. And I think that's what's going 
on in this particular section, is that Jesus is sort of a preliminary 
hearing by Annas, and then Annas sends him over to Caiaphas, according 
to verse 24. So Caiaphas is the high priest 
at that time, leader of the Sanhedrin, and so that's the trial before 
the Jews. It's recorded for us in Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke. So as I said, Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke do not give us this sort of preliminary hearing by 
Annas, but it picks up with this Sanhedrin trial, and then of 
course the Sanhedrin finds Jesus guilty, and then they condemn 
him to go to Pilate. They did not have the authority 
to execute Jesus, so they needed Pilate, the Roman governor, to 
give that kill order so that Jesus would be executed. So when 
we look at this particular section, the narrative as well bounces 
back and forth between Jesus and Simon Peter. And I think 
that John is doing that for a very specific reason. When you look 
at Peter's denial recorded in verses 15 to 18, and then the 
second and third denial in verses 25 to 27, we're supposed to understand 
that while Jesus is being examined by Annas, And while Jesus is 
testifying truthfully, and while Jesus is not shrinking back from 
being pressed by this godless man, Simon Peter is denying the 
Master with reference to this servant girl, and then subsequent 
others in the second and third denial. So the reason that it's 
set up in such a way, sort of a back and forth, is to indicate 
that while Jesus is before Annas, the high priest, Simon Peter 
is before servants, and he is denying the master. So we will 
bounce back and forth the way that the narrative is written. 
So we'll look first at the meeting with the high priest in verses 
13 and 14. Secondly, the first denial by 
Peter in verses 15 to 18. Third, the examination by the 
high priest in verses 19 to 24. And then finally, the other denials 
by Peter in verses 25 to 27. So Jesus is arrested. He is bound according to verse 
12. and then he is taken to meet the high priest. So notice in 
verse 13. And they led him away to Annas first, for he was the 
father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now 
I should say that when we do get to verses 19 to 24, there 
is some ambiguity there. Some suggest that he is standing 
in a preliminary way before Caiaphas. I think it makes better sense 
to see him before Annas, and then dispatch him over to Caiaphas, 
according to verse 24. But the particular issue that 
we see here is that while there is some question concerning the 
high priestly function of Annas and Caiaphas, There's no question 
whatsoever in terms of who the true high priest is in the narrative. It's the Lord Jesus Christ. That's 
why when this officer slaps Jesus and says, do you dare question 
the high priest that way? It is the height of gall. It 
is the height of chutzpah. It is absolutely incredulous 
that this man would smack our blessed Savior when the Savior 
hadn't done anything wrong, was simply answering on cross-examination, 
and then he is buffeted by this wretched man. So I think John 
wants us as well to realize that whether it's Annas or whether 
it's Caiaphas, whoever is the actual high priest that year, 
it is Caiaphas, and I'll explain this in a moment, Christ is the 
high priest. And when he's arrested in this 
garden, and when he is bound the way that Isaac was bound 
in Genesis chapter 22, when he starts life or brings eternal 
life in a garden, the garden that Adam forfeit life in, This 
high priest is doing what has been announced in John 1, 29. Behold the Lamb of God who takes 
away the sin of the world. And that Lamb of God is no other 
than the Jesus identified in John 1, 1. In the beginning was 
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And 
John 1.14, the word became flesh and dwelt among us. He took on 
our humanity to live for us and to die for us and to be raised 
again for us. So there's no question in terms 
of who the actual high priest is when we come to John chapter 
18. It's the Lord Jesus. But notice 
in verse 13, they led him away to Annas. So Annas was high priest 
from AD 6 to AD 15, but he was deposed by Pilate's predecessor, 
which means that the Romans had some say in terms of the high 
priest, because high priest was an appointment to life. You didn't 
just get fired as a high priest. You either died or you moved 
on and your sons replaced you. So according to law, the appointment 
to high priest was for life, so obviously Romans had influence 
over such things. Five of Annas' sons served as 
a high priest, as did his son-in-law Caiaphas. They covered AD 17 
to 41. Josephus speaks of this in his 
Antiquities. Now, former presidents are still 
called president. If you bumped into any former 
president, I imagine it's the same in Canada, any former prime 
minister, you still call him prime minister. Well, that's 
why Annas is titled as high priest. Also, in Luke chapter 3 and in 
Acts chapter 4, we read that Annas and Caiaphas are high priests. I don't think it's a joint high 
priesthood, but it's that deference in terms of title with reference 
to Annas. So then notice he then goes on 
to Caiaphas. So verse 13, they led him away 
to Annas first, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who 
was high priest that year. Then it mentions Caiaphas again 
in verse 14. It was Caiaphas who advised the 
Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. 
So he was the high priest, he's functioning in that capacity, 
but as well, he spoke prophetically. If you go back to chapter 11, 
John reminds us here of what was done in John chapter 11. 
Notice in John 11, at a time, a judicial decision to kill Jesus, 
So what we find in chapter 18 isn't a new thing. They've been 
plotting and engaging and unsettling trying to work behind the scenes 
to kill the Lord Jesus Christ. But notice in John 11 at verse 
49, and one of them Caiaphas being high priest that year said 
to them, you know nothing at all, nor do you consider that 
it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people 
and not that the whole nation should perish. Now you see what 
he's saying. We got to liquidate this Jesus. 
We got to kill this Jesus. We got to get rid of this Jesus. 
But as John goes on to tell us, he's actually speaking prophetically. He doesn't mean it this way. 
We know the very sum and substance of the Christian message is that 
the just one died for the unjust many. Christ did die to save 
his people from their sins. He did die to save that royal 
priesthood, that chosen generation, that holy nation. Caiaphas just 
wants the death of Jesus to spare them and their relationship with 
the Roman government. But John the Evangelist tells 
us in verse 51, now this he did not say on his own, but being 
high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the 
nation, and not for that nation only, but also that he would 
gather together in one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 
Sometimes people speak better than they know, and you see that 
with Caiaphas. But then verse 53, "...then from 
that day on they plotted to put him to death. Therefore Jesus 
no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there 
into the country near the wilderness to a city called Ephraim, and 
there remained with his disciples." So back to John 18 at verse 14. What we have is the identification 
of the high priest that had spoken prophetically and properly, but 
not as he wished. God is able to overrule the wickedness 
of man. Even the wrath of man shall praise 
thee, the psalmist says. Now, notice then, when we come 
to this particular section, as I mentioned, there's a difference 
between John and his handling of the material, and Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke. And so I just want to sketch 
that so we kind of have an idea of where we're at. First, this 
preliminary hearing. It's before Annas. Preliminary 
hearing is just that. Is there enough evidence here 
to send him on? If there's not, well then, you 
just end it. There obviously was, as far as 
Annas is concerned, because he sends him to Caiaphas and the 
Sanhedrin, according to verse 24. So that brings up, then, 
the trial before the Sanhedrin. That's indicated, at least in 
verse 24 in John, but it's certainly in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 
22. From there, Jesus is sent to 
Pilate, and that's where John then capitalizes much of his 
energies on what happens before the Roman trial. Now remember 
that as Jesus is before Pilate, Pilate knows that jurisdictionally 
Herod has charge over Jesus. So as any good politician does, 
he passes the buck. And so he sends Jesus over to 
Herod, and you find that in Luke 23, verses 6 to 12. Of course, 
Herod doesn't know what to do with him, so he sends him back 
to Pontius Pilate, and here in John chapter 18, beginning at 
about 38B, to 1916, we have the official decision or verdict 
by Pontius Pilate. So there's no discrepancies, 
there's no contradictions. It is simply a matter that the 
Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, focus on the Sanhedrin 
and a bit on Pilate, but John focuses more on Pontius. and 
the actual outworkings of the execution. So that's the first 
meeting with the high priest. Now notice, secondly, the denial 
by Peter in verses 15 to 18. Verses 15 to 18. And just, you 
know, at the outset, I'm gonna say things about Peter that I 
don't mean personally. I think in many ways, Peter represents 
all of us. We're a bit impetuous. We're 
a bit fickle. We can pull out the sword from 
our sheath and slash at a Roman soldier in the garden to protect 
our savior and then deny our savior to a servant girl. We 
have that, don't we? We fluctuate a bit. We're eight 
foot tall and bulletproof with some people and others we clam 
up. We don't want to pray in a Tim 
Hortons because people might think we're weird. You know, 
I'm not picking on Peter. I think Peter is a guy just like 
the rest of us in a whole lot of ways. A ready fire aim sort 
of a fellow. A fellow that is not eight foot 
tall and bulletproof the entirety of his life. So I'm not picking 
on Peter, but he's in Scripture for us. One, to see what happens 
when we're not standing fast, but two, to magnify the glorious 
grace of Almighty God. I mentioned last week, you know, 
with Malchus, I'd have left his ear off just to teach him a lesson. If I was Jesus with Peter, I'd 
probably say, you know what? You stay far from me. That's not it at all. And it's 
Peter on the day of Pentecost preaching Jesus Christ and Him 
crucified. So Peter's there to show us our 
tendencies. He's also there to show us the 
graciousness and the kindness and the mercy of God Almighty. 
So in the parallel account in Matthew's gospel, we read in 
Matthew 26 at verse 56b, the disciples forsook him and fled. At a time when he needed them 
most, they forsake him and they flee. But in verse 58 in Matthew 
26, it says, Peter followed him, but Peter followed him at a distance 
to the high priest's courtyard. Plummer says, Peter follows out 
of love, but at a distance out of fear. Matthew Henry says, 
it looks ill and bodes worse when those that are willing to 
be Christ's disciples are not willing to be known to be so. 
Here began Peter's denying Him. For to follow Him afar off is 
by little and little to go back from Him. There is danger in 
drawing back, nay, in looking back. So as we approach this 
particular scene, and again, it's in the It's in the inspired 
accounts. The Spirit wants us to read this, 
He wants us to know this, and He wants us to understand this. Again, to see our own tendencies, 
but to magnify the grace of God Almighty. So note the setting 
in verses 15 and 16. This another disciple, most commentators 
take it as John. John, the beloved disciple, mentioned 
in John 13. And then at the resurrection, 
we have Peter and another disciple, Peter and John. And this makes 
good sense in the context because we have eyewitness testimony 
from an insider. So John was known to the high 
priest. What the relationship is, we don't know. But John had 
access into the courtyard and Peter did not. And so John asks 
that Peter can get into the courtyard. And so then the servant girl 
asks Peter, aren't you this man's disciple as well? Notice verse 
17, the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, you are 
not also one of this man's disciples, are you? So basically the question 
is not in essence an attack on the person of Jesus. You don't 
believe this Jesus is the Messiah, do you? That's not the nature 
of the question. It's sort of a guilt by association 
question. You're not one of his disciples, 
are you? You're not one that wants to 
identify with him, are you? So in essence, Peter's not denying 
the person of Christ. He's denying that he's a follower 
of the person of Christ. Which, brethren, is a denial 
of Christ. Christ announces that Peter's 
going to do this in chapter 13 at verse 38, and he says, you 
will deny me. But in terms of the denying of 
Jesus, it's not, he cannot be the Messiah. He's not the actual 
Lord of glory. It's not that. It's that Peter's 
not a follower of our Lord Jesus Christ. So the apostle cuts the 
ear off the high priest's servant in the garden, and here in the 
courtyard, he can't affirm to a servant girl that he's a follower 
of Jesus. The fickleness of our religion. 
Not the fickleness of our religion, but the fickleness of us in our 
religion. Don't we have that? Oh, no, not 
me, brother. I'm always faithful and consistent. 
I testify to everybody. Good. You should have Bible studies 
and teach the rest of us because we need that. Peter is representative 
of that kind of bravado that is able to take out a sword and 
shoot at the head of Amalcus. And then moments later, tell 
a servant girl, nope, not me. No guilt by association here. 
Some suggest that he's trying to fly under the radar so that 
he can always be in the presence of the Lord Jesus. But again, 
it doesn't make sense of Jesus' announcement in 1338 that he 
was gonna deny him. Jesus doesn't interpret what 
Peter's going to do as an expression of love for the Savior. Not that 
I think Jesus discounts Peter's love for the Savior, but he calls 
it a denial of him. In fact, let's get that text 
before us in John 13, verse 38, because it comes on the heels 
of an announcement of this kind of bravado. Notice in 1336, Simon 
Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going? Jesus answered 
him, where am I going? You cannot follow me now, but 
you shall follow me afterward. Peter said to him, Lord, why 
can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for your 
sake. That's the kind of Peter we want. 
I will lay down my life for your sake. The kind of Peter we want, 
again, we can't necessarily condone it, but the kind of Peter that 
we want pulls out a sword and cuts at the head of Malchus. 
Again, not telling you to pick up a sword and go fishing for 
an RCMP officer today, but the point is, is that he had a zeal 
and a vigor and a desire to defend his master. That's the kind of 
Simon Peter that we all say, yeah, But then Jesus answered 
him in verse 38, will you lay down your life for my sake? Most 
assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you 
have denied me three times. So it's a noble attempt to try 
to put Peter in the best possible light saying, you know, he's 
just flying under the radar so that he's always near the master. 
But that's not what Jesus says. It's a denial of Jesus. And again, look at the text in 
verse 15. So Simon Peter followed Jesus 
and so did another, I'm sorry, verse 18. After the denial, he 
says, or it says, now the servants and officers who had made a fire 
of coals stood there, for it was cold and they warmed themselves. And Peter stood with them and 
warmed himself. John is writing under the inspiration 
of the Spirit. So we give all credit and glory 
to the Spirit for the actual sacred text. Spirit doesn't mitigate 
the rational and intellectual and literary capabilities of 
the authors themselves, and this stood-with-them motif is pretty 
powerful here. Where's Judas? Standing with 
the Roman soldiers, standing with the temple officers. Where's 
Simon Peter here? He's standing with the servants 
in the courtyard, not standing with the Savior. Again, it's 
a subtlety for sure, but it highlights what's happening to a great saint 
of Christ Almighty. I think we do well to heed Paul's 
admonition in 1 Corinthians 10, take heed to yourselves lest 
you fall. I mean, there's those moments, 
I'm ready to die for you, Jesus, but I'm not willing to pray for 
a donut at Tim Hortons because I don't want people to think 
I'm weird. That's just bizarre behavior. 
Why is that? Why do we have that sort of perplexity 
in us at times? I don't know. Remaining Sid? 
Weakness? We're not all that we think we 
are? We do need to take heed to ourselves lest we fall. So 
Simon Peter is standing here at this fire of coals, warming 
himself. Now just look over to verse 25. Now Simon Peter stood and warmed 
himself. So verses 15 to 18 and 25 to 27 are intimately connected. It's not like verse 18, he starts 
to warm himself and then on the next day he's still warming himself. 
No, the scene is portrayed in such a way that what is happening 
in terms of Peter's denials of the Lord happens at the time 
that Jesus goes to stand before Annas. So notice then in verses 
19 to 24, the examination by the high priest. The high priest 
then asked Jesus. Again, the ambiguity comes because 
we're just told in verse 14 that Caiaphas is the high priest. 
So we might be inclined to think that Jesus is standing here before 
Caiaphas. But then we get to 24, then Annas 
sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Probably why Annas 
is mentioned in verse 13 and why we should suppose that verse 
19 to 24 is Annas doing a preliminary hearing to see if this is something 
the Sanhedrin, his son-in-law Caiaphas, should hear before 
they elevate it to the next level with reference to the Roman government. So, when we pick up this preliminary 
hearing, there are three things here. The question concerning 
his doctrine, the violence inflicted on his person, and the further 
examination of his case. It's a trial. It's a preliminary hearing. It's 
official. Annis has the pedigree. He can 
do this. He's doing it. First, notice 
the question concerning his disciples and doctrine. Verse 19, the high 
priest then asked Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Interestingly, why does he want 
to know about his disciples and his doctrine? Well, if his disciples 
are a threat, perceived or real, to the Jewish religious structure 
or to the Roman government, it certainly helps to facilitate 
their case in getting input to death. In other words, if his 
disciples are a band of insurrectionists and revolutionaries and zealots 
that are ready to topple the Roman government, that'd be a 
good piece of information to bring to Pilate, wouldn't it? 
I mean, they eventually do. He's trying to usurp Pilate's 
authority, Luke 23, and he's counseling people not to pay 
taxes. Do you think the Sanhedrin thought 
that Pilate was going to sign off on the death penalty for 
a blasphemy charge? Pilate didn't care about Jewish 
law and blasphemy vis-a-vis Jesus claiming to be the Messiah. That's 
why they put it in the context of he's a threat to the political 
power in the Roman Empire, and he wants to stop people from 
paying taxes. You ever want to get a government 
against you? Stop paying your taxes. They don't like that. I don't 
know why that is, but they don't like that. Naftali tells me they 
refer to their prime minister there in Kenya as Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus. because he's got the 
big claw going after the taxes. I think we could probably say, 
yeah, that resonates to some degree or other. You see, they 
had to couch it in such a way to bring it to Pontius Pilate 
for him to execute a criminal offender. They couldn't just 
show up and say, we don't like this guy's theology. We don't 
like that he claims to be Messiah. We don't like that he says and 
does these. No. Annas is building a case. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin are 
going to build a case. They're not going to just send 
Jesus willy-nilly to Pilate without the death penalty. That's what 
they're after. And so he asks about his disciples 
and his doctrine. That then brings us to the specific 
response concerning his doctrine and his disciples. It's not that 
he doesn't answer both questions, he does, just inverts the order 
a bit. And I'll show you that. Notice 
in verse 19, he asks about his disciples and his doctrine. And 
then in verse 20, he starts with his doctrine. I spoke openly 
in the world. I always taught in synagogues 
and in the temple where the Jews always meet. And in secret, I 
have said nothing. Why do you ask me? Ask those 
who heard me what I said to them. Indeed, they know what I said. My doctrine wasn't, you know, 
pitched in a back alley in the cover of night. I came openly. I went into the synagogues. I went into the temple. I disputed 
with religious leaders. Temple officers even in chapter 
seven, remember? They wanted to go get Jesus and 
they didn't get Jesus. And they were questioned why 
they didn't get Jesus. And the temple officer said, 
no man ever spoke like this man. Jesus is saying, this isn't esoteric. This isn't a mystery religion. 
We're not engaged in some back alley deal here. I came openly. What I taught, people heard. 
And if you ask those people, my disciples, and you ask your 
temple officers, they will affirm. Notice at the end of verse 21, 
indeed, they know what I said. He's answering the questions 
that are posed to him. And I think it's somewhat sad, 
that one of those testimonies or one of those testifiers or 
witnesses is presently right now denying him to servants in 
the courtyard. So Jesus, again, faithfully, 
earnestly, determinatively, standing fast, and Simon Peter denying 
the master all the while. So that's Jesus' response. I spoke openly. In fact, this 
is how he answers it in the synoptics when they show up with weapons. 
You're gonna bring weapons here? It is almost laughable, brethren. 
Christ's ministry as we've seen it played out in the scriptures. 
He's been in synagogues. He's been in the temple. He's 
disputed with the religious leaders in the temple. He hasn't sought 
insurrection. He hasn't said, let's burn the 
Roman government down. Let's just destroy everything 
that we see and then we'll start afresh. No, he doesn't do that. 
He teaches, he instructs, he shows from the scriptures how 
he is the one that the scriptures were prophesying concerning. 
So he says to them in the synoptics, you're coming to me with weapons? 
You're gonna arrest me and inflict violence on me when you know 
my pattern? In this three-year ministry, 
I go to synagogues, I teach and I preach. We read it there in 
Luke 4. They're amazed at the words that 
are flowing out of his mouth until he says something they 
don't wanna hear and they wanna throw him off a cliff. That's symptomatic as well. People like the teaching of Jesus, 
some of it. They love some of the teaching 
of Jesus, but blood atonement, Lamb of God, forgiveness of sins, 
eternal wrath and judgment, meh, we don't like that kind of Jesus 
talk. So Jesus tells them, I've been 
here, I'm doing this. Now note the violence inflicted 
on his person according to verse 23. And when he had said these 
things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the 
palm of his hand saying, do you answer the high priest like that? Do you answer the high priest 
like that? Like what? As we move through 
this, both the trial before the Jews and the trial before the 
Romans, please see in this the glory of your Savior. the beauty and the goodness and 
the excellence of your Savior, that He went through this for 
us? Who of us would take this the 
way that Jesus did? He's slapped for no reason, but 
He does respond. Notice what Jesus doesn't do. He doesn't turn the other cheek. 
He teaches this in the Sermon on the Mount, doesn't he? Somebody 
slaps you on the face, turn to him the other cheek. But Jesus 
specifically doesn't turn the other cheek here. Why? Because 
the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to do with criminal court proceedings. It has everything to do with 
your day-in, day-out interpersonal relationships, not to some bloodthirsty 
temple officer that slaps you on the side of the face in an 
official court setting with no jurisdiction whatsoever. This 
kind of thinking that takes the Sermon on the Mount and makes 
that universal principle for all of life is a very problematic 
reading of the Sermon on the Mount. You are not in instances 
like these required to tell a temple officer who has no jurisdiction 
to smack you to go ahead and smack the other side. What would 
Jesus do? Jesus wouldn't turn the other 
cheek in this instance. Jesus would say to him what Jesus 
says to him in verse 21 or 23. If I have spoken evil, bear witness 
of the evil. But if well, why do you strike 
me? There is a biblical demand for just proceedings. Christ 
operates in that atmosphere. He operates in that orbit. There 
is a biblical demand for rules of evidence. If I have spoken 
evil, bear witness of the evil. Rules of evidence, brethren. 
If you're going to be accused of committing a crime, there 
better be some evidence against you. And if this guy can't pony 
up some evidence, it leads inevitably to the last part. But if well, 
why do you strike me? There is a biblical requirement 
and demand in civil jurisprudence for legitimate actionable crimes 
in order to inflict punishment on a violator. I know it seems 
bizarre, but we can't just operate like animals. We can't just operate 
like we're monkeys in the jungle. We are governed by law, and Jesus 
points this out to this particular officer. Now, as far as Annas 
is concerned, the case has been made, intriguingly. The thought 
process behind an Annas and a Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin, I mean, at least 
Pilate, you know he's a gutless wonder. Pilate knows Jesus is 
not guilty. The tension in the pilot narratives, 
I mean, it's masterful the way it's written. He knows he's not 
guilty. He confesses it three times. 
I find no guilt in this man. Matthew tells us he knows why 
Jesus has been brought to him. It's because of the envy of these 
Jewish unbelievers. Pilate is horrible. I'm not condoning him. I'm saying 
he's wretched. He's terrible. But at least he's 
somewhat honest. What's in the thought of Annas 
and Caiaphas? Well, we know what's in their 
thoughts because according to verse 24, this then institutes 
or initiates rather the trial before the Sanhedrin. How does 
the Sanhedrin function according to Matthew's gospel? Well, they 
use false witnesses. That's great. The highest religious 
political authority in all of Israel in subjection to the Roman 
empire is going to use false witnesses to make their case. 
Again, brethren, the die has been cast. These people wanna 
kill Jesus. They're gonna kill Jesus. So 
the use of false witnesses, Matthew 26, 59 to 63a. The direct question 
by the high priest in Matthew 26, 62 and 63, are you the son 
of God? Which intriguingly, if we're 
going based on the principles outlined in the Sermon on the 
Mount, Jesus should have sat there silently. The high priest 
charges him under oath to answer. Jesus answers under oath. The prohibition against oath-taking 
in Matthew chapter 5 is not in a criminal court. It's not when 
you're standing before an anise or a Caiaphas. It's in your day-to-day 
life, let your yes be yes and your no, no. You shouldn't have 
to swear on a stack of Bibles that you're gonna be home at 
5.30. There's a different thing going on in the Sermon on the 
Mount than civil ethics or even churchly ecclesiastical ethics. Don't read the Sermon on the 
Mount as universal to every possible situation. Turn the other cheek 
does not mean if somebody breaks into your house to violate your 
wife, you tell them your daughters are down at the end of the hall. 
That is a horrible implication and a bad way to read the Sermon 
on the Mount. It is to miss the point. So here, 
Jesus... or rather before Caiaphas, he 
then testifies in 2664, it is as you said, and hereafter you 
will see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power. Coming in the clouds, it was 
a Daniel reference, Daniel 7, 13 and 14. So how do they respond 
then? It's a formal charge of blasphemy. We've heard it ourselves, a high 
priest rips his garment. And we learned that it wasn't 
just a temple officer that slapped Jesus. It was Sanhedrin members. Sanhedrin members, the highest 
council, the highest group. Guys that should be functioning 
and setting the pattern for faithfulness in the nation of Israel are buffeting, 
slapping, and doling out blows to the Lord of glory. Spitting 
on him too. They spat on him. Again, brethren, 
as you move through this narrative, you've got to think on how good 
your savior is to go through these things for us. The word 
became flesh without ever ceasing to be the word. So when man is 
spitting on him, when man is buffeting him, when man is crying, 
away with him, away with him, crucify him. Guess who man's 
target is? It's the divine word. It's God 
the Son. It's the Lord of glory. It is 
that God-man who for us men and for our salvation came down out 
of heaven. The love of Christ is at every 
stage in the passion narrative for us. And then that brings 
us to Peter's second and third denials. The methodology, I think, 
is pretty conspicuous. Jesus, Peter. Faithfulness in 
truth, unfaithfulness in deception. I'm not his disciple. I'm not 
his follower. The one before a high priest 
and authority, and he's going to maintain that kind of fidelity 
when he's standing before Pontius Pilate. Peter with a servant 
girl. Peter with a handful of people 
out in the yard, warming their hands at a charcoal fire. It's 
sad, brethren. And again, I'm not picking on 
Peter. I'm not necessarily reading you into this passage. I have 
a tendency to read me into this passage, but I don't want to 
do that to you because I don't know your heart. I should qualify, 
but if you're like every other sinner that's ever lived, redeemed 
by grace, you probably struggle to some degree or other with 
the kind of steadfastness wherein Peter on his best days is willing 
to die for the Lord Jesus. It's kind of like a parallel 
or analogously, Paul in Ephesians 5 says, husbands, love your wives 
just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. We 
look at that and we say, man, a husband's love needs to be 
self-sacrificial. Right? Just as Christ loved the 
church and gave himself for her. I need to be willing to die for 
my wife. I need to be willing to kill for my wife, should the 
circumstances dictate. But am I willing to take the 
garbage out for my wife? Am I willing to pick up a dish 
for my wife? Am I willing to stop at the store 
on the way home after I've had a busy day to pick up milk for 
my wife? See, we've got the bravado. We're 
gonna jump on their grenade when my honey's nearby, but I can't 
be bothered to stop at the store? It's kind of like what's happening 
here. Peter says, I'm willing to die 
for you, Lord, but you're not willing to own me before a servant 
girl? You'll do the greater, but not 
the lesser? See, logically, it's supposed to work. You do the 
great, you'll do the lesser. We'll do the great, love our 
wives self-sacrificially, but we won't do the lesser, do a 
dish. How do we not see that incongruity? How do we not see 
that fickleness? I mean, we see it when it's a 
Peter on the pages of Holy Scripture. We don't always see it when it's 
in our own heart. So the connection is strong, verses 18 and 25. Same scene, same situation, but 
here Peter. His denial takes a step in the 
wrong direction. I'd argue that the frequency 
of the denial is bad, the obviousness of the denial is bad, and the 
context of the denial is bad. Again, the context. He's not 
facing Roman soldiers in a dark garden. He's facing a servant 
girl who simply asks him a question upon entrance into the courtyard. 
But the obviousness. Look at verse 25. Now Simon Peter 
stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, you 
are not also one of his disciples, are you? He denied it and said, 
I am not. One of the servants of the high 
priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, did 
I not see you in the garden with him? The obviousness. He's got an eyewitness. I happen 
to be related to Malchus. I happen to see that sword fling 
its way at Malchus attached to your hand. And I saw Malchus's 
ear fall on the ground. Nope, wasn't me. It's like, dude, 
when you're in a hole, this is a good proverb for all of life. 
When you're in a hole, stop digging. Just stop. When you're in a hole, 
stop digging. Peter, don't do this. Did I not 
see you in the garden with him? Now brethren, he's gotta know 
this. He's not making this up. Peter 
then denied again and immediately a rooster crowed. Have you ever 
wondered why weather vanes are often roosters? And why churches 
historically have put rooster shaped weather vanes on top of 
their buildings? It's this text. What's the implication? When you look at that rooster 
weather vane, remember Peter. Remember Peter. So that when 
you enter into your new week, you're afraid to bow your head 
at Tim Hortons, because the heathen are going to think you're weird. 
People who think men can get pregnant are going to think you're 
weird. How do we get here? Remember 
that, that preacher of righteousness, that rooster. Jesus told him 
it was going to happen. After Peter says, I'm willing 
to die for you, Really? You're gonna die for me? No, 
you're not. You're gonna deny me. You're 
gonna deny me. Brethren, remember that rooster. Remember that weather vane. Put 
one on the top of your house. Not a bad idea to remember as 
you pull out of your driveway. Well, in conclusion, the wretchedness 
of the trial As I said, the die was cast, humanly speaking. We 
know divinely speaking it is as well. It was the predetermined 
plan of God Almighty that His Son come into this world, sinners, 
to save. And the way that He would affect 
that is through His life of perfect obedience to the Father's law, 
and then His death at Calvary, not as an example, but as a substitute, 
as a sacrifice for all that the Father had given Him. We need 
blood atonement. The blood of Jesus Christ, His 
Son, cleanses us from all sin. So the die was cast in eternity 
from the Father in terms of the death of the Son. But with reference 
to these religious leaders, they wanted to kill Him. And they 
were purposing to kill Him, and they were going to kill Him. 
They did not have jurisdiction to execute Jesus, so they held 
a trial, quotes, trial, to determine Jesus' guilt. Again, the fact 
that they use false witnesses. The fact that they start smacking 
at him before there's any conviction, any sentencing, it shows that 
it's a kangaroo court. It's a mob. It is a travesty. And these were people that, when 
we get to Pilate again, on the one hand, honest, gutless wonder, 
but honest. But he wasn't conversant with 
Deuteronomy. He probably didn't do his devotions 
in Leviticus. He wasn't a big fan of Exodus. He didn't have, I mean, the Romans 
had great jurisprudence founded on God's natural law, which is 
similar to what we have in the Decalogue. So, of course, Pilate 
had that, you know, emphasis on proper jurisdiction. The Jews 
had Exodus. They had Leviticus. They had 
Deuteronomy. They had the prophets. They had 
all the testimony of God in terms of how we're supposed to proceed. They had the wisdom of Solomon. 
Proverbs chapter 17, whoever condemns a righteous man or whoever 
justifies an unrighteous man, both alike are an abomination 
to the Lord. That's precisely what they're 
doing. They're condemning a righteous man. They are living with the 
knowledge of what God's law demands, and they're living completely 
contrary to it. The use of false witnesses, the 
rejection of clear evidence, the infliction of violence without 
cause, and the formal charge of blasphemy. And add to that 
tax evasion and a usurpation of Caesar in order to secure 
Pilate's activity to sign the death warrant and to turn Jesus 
over to this mob. As well, we see the fickleness 
of Peter. Fickleness. Pray to God that 
we wouldn't be fickle. That we'd always be willing to 
die for Jesus. We'd always be willing to live 
for Jesus. We'd always be willing, whether 
we're in the garden with the sword against Malchus, or we're 
in the courtyard with the servant girl who asks us a very simple 
question. Fickleness is not good. When 
we look at the master here, he's not fickle. He is resolved. He 
is truthful. He is accurate. He is faithful 
and consistent in his testimony before these godless men. But 
as I said, the fact that Peter is restored, I love it. In Matthew 
28, you can turn there. Matthew 28, upon the resurrection 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, we notice in verse nine, And as they went to tell his 
disciples, behold, Jesus met them saying, rejoice. So they 
came and held him by the feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus 
said to them, do not be afraid. Go and tell my brethren to go 
to Galilee. And there they will see me. Which 
is loaded with comfort there. I mean, who's his brethren? Those 
who forsook him according to Matthew chapter 26. But look 
at the parallel in Mark, Mark chapter 16. Now Mark and Peter 
were buddies. They were very close. Very close. In the parallel, Mark 16, verse 
six, but he said to them, do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus 
of Nazareth who was crucified. He is risen. He is not here. 
See the place where they laid him, but go tell his disciples 
and Peter. just lest anybody should think 
that Peter is now excluded from the group called disciples and 
Peter. I mentioned their buddies, because 
probably Peter said, make sure you mention me. I don't come 
off pretty well in the final times of the Passion. I denied 
the Master. The Master never denied me. The 
Master always received me. The Master always restored me. 
So you make sure, Mark, that they know that disciples includes 
me, Peter. And he stands up on that day 
of Pentecost and he says, this is that which was spoken by the 
prophet Joel. Whoever calls on the name of 
the Lord shall be saved. And I'm gonna tell you who that 
Lord is. He is our blessed Jesus who was 
crucified, who was resurrected, who was exalted at the right 
hand of God, that whoever believes on him will have everlasting 
life. Peter is the one who stands up on that day of Pentecost as 
a man who had known the grace of God Most High to preach the 
grace of God Most High to Jerusalem sinners. Repent and let every 
one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission 
of sins. This is Peter's emphasis. How 
does Peter convey that, or why does Peter convey that? Because 
he had been conquered by God's grace. And then finally, see 
the faithfulness of the Savior. His determination to drink the 
cup of God's wrath, verse 11. Never forget, behind Annas, behind 
Caiaphas, behind the Romans, behind Pontius Pilate, the bigger, 
greater deal for Jesus is as the obedient son to the father 
who is going to drink the cup of the father's wrath in order 
to satisfy divine justice to save his people from their sins. 
His willingness to be bound as a criminal, verse 12. His readiness 
to give a defense of his disciples and doctrine, in verse 20. His 
commitment to biblical law, in verse 23. Why are you striking 
me? If I've spoken evil, show me 
evidence. If I have not spoken evil, why are you hitting me? 
And then the confession of his identity, Matthew 26, 64, it 
is as you said, nevertheless, I say to you hereafter, you will 
see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power and 
coming on the clouds of heaven. And ultimately his obedience 
to the father in all things. When you read the Passion Narrative 
or you hear the Passion Narrative preach, yes, he's doing that 
for us men and for our salvation. but He's doing it first and foremost 
because He always does what pleases the Father. His meat is to do 
the will of Him who sent Him. I always do that which is pleasing 
to the Father. So we benefit, we are blessed, 
we are secured in our redemption because of what Christ does, 
but never forget He does this for the glory, the majesty, the 
exaltation, and the excellence of His Father. That's what animated 
the Son of God in His earthly ministry. Well, let us pray and 
bless the Lord for our wonderful Savior. Our Father, we thank 
you that when we stood estranged from you, dead in our trespasses 
and sins, you undertook in the best possible way to save us 
from our sins. We thank you that the Word became 
flesh We thank you that He is the Lamb of God who takes away 
the sin of the world. We pray that all over the earth 
today as this gospel is preached, you'd open hearts grant graces 
of faith and repentance so that sinners may call upon the name 
of the Lord Jesus Christ and come to him and be found in him. And may you strengthen and sanctify 
your people, build us up in our most holy faith, give us that 
good resolve of Simon Peter, but help us to maintain fidelity, 
help us not to shrink back from owning our blessed Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ. And it's in his name that we 
pray, amen. Well, you can turn with me in 
your hymn books to 572. 572, we'll stand as we sing together. as it was in the beginning is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ 
and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you 
all. Amen. Well, please be seated for a 
brief time of meditation.