(A) Introduction. (Read the reference)

John's description of events between Jesus' arrest and his trial before Pilate differs significantly from that in the other gospels. John covers the preliminary investigation before Annas, a former high priest, but not the hearing before the Sanhedrin presided over by Caiaphas the acting high priest. His account of the denials of Peter is also different from that in the synoptic gospels. It seems likely that John wrote about what he experienced personally. He may have missed Peter's denial in the porch leading to the courtyard and he probably was unable to gain entry to the court of Caiaphas.

During the interrogation of Jesus by Annas Peter experienced his own cross-examination. The conduct of the Master and his disciple could not be more dissimilar. Jesus showed fortitude and dignity; Peter was craven and humiliated.

(B) Jesus' interrogation by Annas.

(1) The interrogator
(a) Who was he? Annas had been high priest from AD6 to AD15 before being dismissed by the Roman Governor who preceded Pilate. Traditionally a high priest held office for life but during Roman occupation the function of the high priest was as much political as religious. However, it seems as though Annas retained the title 'high priest' in the same way that former Presidents of the U.S.A. are still referred to as 'President'. In Annas case it was something more than an honorary appellation as he remained the 'power behind the throne'. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas were appointed high priest . No doubt Annas and Caiaphas worked hand in glove. Annas probably agreed to conduct a preliminary investigation of Jesus while Caiaphas was convening an early morning, emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin.

(b) What was the point of the interrogation. I suppose today it would be called a fact finding exercise. It certainly was not an opportunity for Jesus to clear his name. The priestly party had already decided to kill Jesus. After the raising of Lazarus the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and from that day on they plotted to take his life. John11v53. The chief priests were keen to get rid of Jesus because he showed them up when he cleansed the temple and denounced their venality. His rising popularity also threatened to destroy the status quo and could result in their loss of power under the Romans. See exposition on the Final Solution. Thirdly I don't think the Sadducees liked the unorthodox rabbi from Nazareth much. They had a big plank of bias in their eye.

Annas questioned Jesus on his teaching and about his disciples in the hope that he would say something incriminating. The wily chief priest needed to be careful. The charge brought against Jesus must be acceptable to both the Pharisees and Sadducees who hated one another. The apostle Paul made good use of this antagonism between the two parties at his arraignment before the Sanhedrin when he cried out, "I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." This led to a dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the assembly was divided. We know from Matthew's gospel that when Jesus was later tried before the Sanhedrin the chief priests found it difficult to find two witnesses to agree about anything.

(c) How did Annas proceed? The short answer to this question is: illegally. The essence of the Jewish legal process was the sworn testimony of witnesses. At least two witnesses should make a charge against Jesus. They were the ones who should be questioned - not the accused. From beginning to end the authorities - Annas, Caiaphas and the other members of the Assembly relied on Jesus incriminating himself.

Jesus also had a foretaste of what was to come during his investigation by Annas. After Jesus pointed out the correct legal procedure he was smashed in the face. When Jesus said this, one of the officials near by struck him in the face. v22. It is never long before the inveterate enemies of God resort to violence.

LESSON:

The opponents of Christianity are not interested in truth and justice. Whenever they engage in dialogue with believers they are only out to discredit the Faith. In particularly they want Christians to be accused out of their own mouths by appearing bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, hypocritical and legalistic. The sad fact is they so often do.

(2) The prisoner.
(a) Jesus was alone. He had no advocate alongside - no-one to give him moral support or speak on his behalf.

(b) Jesus was prepared. Unlike Peter, Jesus was prepared for the ordeal that lay ahead. He anticipated what was to come in the Garden of Gethsemane and prayed to his Father for reassurance that he did, indeed, have to go through with it. Jesus .... for the joy set before him endured the cross scorning its shame. Heb12v2.

(c) Jesus was unwilling to co-operate with his captors. He questioned the legality of his interrogation: "I always taught in the synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews came together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." v20and21. This is a very bold and forthright response but completely reasonable nonetheless. Jesus accused Annas of not doing his homework - not preparing his case - not doing his job. Annas was actually such an arrogant man that he had not bothered to find out what Jesus taught. He certainly had not listened to Jesus for him self.

Such was the sting in Jesus' remarks that he was struck in the face.

(d) In spite of receiving a blow to the face Jesus was unbowed. He refused to be intimidated and retorted: "If I said something wrong testify to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth why did you strike me?" v23.

LESSONS:

(1) Unlike Jesus we are never alone when facing the enemies of truth. We have an advocate - one who will help us to testify about Jesus.

(2) We need to be prepared for opposition. Peter wrote: Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. 1Pet3v15.

(3) We should not co-operate with those who just want to trash Christianity. Most of those antagonistic to the Faith know next to nothing about Jesus. They haven't bothered to study the gospel accounts. They are too arrogant to study Jesus' teaching and example.

(4) If we are put down in debate or discussion we shouldn't be intimidated but come back strongly. Think of Paul standing on the steps of the Roman fort in Jerusalem looking at the rioting mob and shouting out: "Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defence." Acts22v1. He made a good defence and so have thousands of brave Christians through the centuries.

(C) Peter's interrogation by the public

(1) The accusers

(a) Who were they? It is necessary to consult all four gospels for a complete picture of Peter's denial. It seems likely that several people accused Peter on three distinct occasions:

(I) After Peter had been admitted into the courtyard of the High Priest's palace he sat by the charcoal fire warming him self. The servant girl, whom John persuaded to admit Peter, later saw him in the glow of the fire. Perhaps, she was taking a meal break or had come off duty. Luke tells us: "She looked closely at him." Lk22v56.

(II) Peter, doubtless disturbed by the girl's accusation, got up and retreated to the shadows of the entrance porch. But Peter found it difficult to escape. The girl followed him and together with her relief gatekeeper informed the guards that Peter was an associate of Jesus - "This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth." Mt26v71.

(III) So Peter went back into the courtyard and once more sat down by the fire. For about an hour Peter was left pretty much alone. As he regained confidence the gregarious disciple began to chat with the palace police. This was a mistake as he only drew attention to himself. Once again some of those by the fire accused him of being a Galilean and supporter of Jesus. They were joined by a relative of Malchus, the high priest's servant, whose ear Peter slashed off. He identified Peter as being one of those with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

It is impossible to properly reconcile the account of Peter's denial in John's gospel with the accounts in the synoptic gospels. It appears that John omitted the second incident that took place out of his sight in the porch leading from the entrance gate into the courtyard. Instead he identifies two temptations in the last confrontation between Peter and his protagonists. This is understandable and for me confirms the reliability of the New Testament but it does not sit easily with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

(b) What was the accusation? Those who challenged Peter about his association with Jesus were consistent: "You were with that Nazarene, Jesus." Mk14v67. "This fellow is one of them." Mk14v69 "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away." Mt26v73. "Didn't I see you with him in the olive grove?" John18v26. Peter was accused of being what he truly was - a disciple of Jesus Christ.

(c) What was the intention of Peter's accusers? It was to:

(I) Show him up as the dupe of a charlatan; to condemn him for his association with a disgraced rabbi.

(II) Question his support for a loser and make him look foolish. It is significant that Peter's rustic Galilean accent drew comment. It would not be long before the temple police ridiculed him for being an ignorant country bumpkin who should know better than to meddle in affairs beyond his understanding.

(III) Indicate that they didn't think Peter should be where he was - enjoying the warmth of the fire in the palace courtyard. He should either be waiting outside the gate or present with John at the interrogation of Jesus.

(IV) Identify Peter as a trouble-maker and get the temple police to arrest him.

Peter felt that his reputation was at stake and if he admitted following Jesus he would lose face.

(d) How did they proceed? Peter's tormentors were:

(I) Persistent. They would not let him rest.

(II) Mocking. They picked on his accent straight away.

(III) Collective. The people in the palace courtyard joined together to pressurise Peter.

(IV) Threatening. The accusation of Malchus' relative put Peter's life at risk.

(1) Both highbrow and lowbrow opponents can put Christians on the spot. I had my allegiance to Jesus tested by a highly intelligent man on a train journey to Durham. It was years ago! I was travelling to Durham for an interview to study Chemistry at the university. My fellow traveller said, "I am glad you are studying something worthwhile and not a lot of nonsense like Theology." I did not respond very forthrightly! I have also been put to the test by a less than intelligent school cleaner who dismissed Christianity as a series of fairy tales. I might have replied to this gem of wisdom with something like, "It's more than that." However, I hardly mounted a spirited defence of the Faith.

(2) When anyone is critical of Christianity, the church or the Bible they challenge us to declare whose side we are on. The gauntlet is thrown down and the question asked: "Are you one of us or are you an enemy." We are being invited to nail our colours to the mast.

(3) We must not expect an easy ride as Christians. The enemies of Christ are eager to join forces against Christians - especially isolated, vulnerable ones. There were not many Christians in the Geography Department of University College when I was there in the 1960's. I was subject to quite a bit of gentle opposition and some ridicule. During those student days I did stand up for what I believed and witnessed for Jesus.

If we face determined foes it is important to be well equipped. Jesus gave Peter good advice before his ordeal: "Watch and pray lest you fall into temptation." Mt26v41.

(2) The Accused.

There are three things to note:

(a) His folly. Peter was warned several times during the last supper of his impending humiliation. Jesus told him: "Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth before the cock crows you will disown me three times." John13v38. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus urged Peter: "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing but the body is weak." Mt26v41.

John did Peter no favour when he gained his friend entry into the palace of Annas: The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in. V16. I find this piece of information among the most puzzling in the whole of John's gospel. If the servant girl at the gate knew John and readily admitted him he must have been a fairly frequent visitor. I cannot believe that John went to visit Annas regularly as a family member. The hostility of Annas to Jesus surely would not permit John to do that. It is possible that they were business associates. Zebedee had a large fishing enterprise. Maybe Annas, a very rich man, had a financial interest in bulk buying salt fish for the Jerusalem market and Zebedee was one of his main suppliers. Perhaps John represented the firm in Jerusalem and got to know the high priest who became rather fond of the lively, engaging, young Galilean.

It was foolish in the extreme for Peter to fraternise with the enemy. The last place he should have been was by the fire in the courtyard of Annas chatting away with those who had arrested Jesus. He was inviting trouble.

(b) His shame. Peter was not undone by the rich, highly educated or powerful. A miscellany of slave girls and servants discomfited him. He repeatedly denied Jesus and did so emphatically. He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, "I don't know this man you're talking about." Mk14v71.

(c) His motivation. Peter succumbed to an habitual weakness. He very much desired to be well thought of. He often acted or spoke to win approval. Peter could not cope with public reproach. He liked to be on the winning side, the leading light in a popular movement. Jesus was proving to be fallible after all. The Master he revered tamely surrendered to the force sent out to arrest him. He gave up without a fight. Peter couldn't understand it. This was no way for the Messiah to behave. The impulsive, big-hearted fisherman who had invested so much time and energy in the cause was bitterly disappointed in Jesus. His denial was an expression of his disillusionment.

LESSONS:

(1) There are many warnings in Scripture and we should heed them. Here are just a few: So if you think you are standing firm be careful that you don't fall! 1Cor10v12. Let us not give up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing. Heb10v25. Do not take any revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath. Rom12v19.

(2) We need to be careful not to live unworthily and deny Jesus in mundane circumstances among ordinary people. I haven't a clear conscience about my behaviour as a schoolteacher, cricketer or hockey player.

(3) We should be aware of our weaknesses especially when we are in trying circumstances. One of my failings is a spirit of retaliation. If I am hurt my immediate reaction is to pay the offender back with interest. If I am sensible I will allow myself a considerable cooling off period.

All Christians that I know have flaws in their temperaments and dispositions - desiring popularity, over sensitive, impulsive, careful with money, critical, gossipy, with a tendency to show off, vulgar, tactless, lazy, abrupt, fastidious, stubborn - the list is endless.

(4) Let us guard against being disappointed in Jesus. There are times when we are tempted to feel disappointed: when our prayers are not answered, our health is poor, our children show no interest in Christianity, blessing does not attend our ministry and we are lonely. We should remember all that Jesus has done for us and bear in mind his warning: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." Mk8v38.