Glory of Christ, Sinfulness of Man (Jn 18:12-27)
Notes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
Last week Linda traveled to Michigan to help a couple of her siblings declutter their parents’ home of over 50 years. Fifty years allows for quite the collection. I imagine there were a couple of times in which Linda moved something and revealed the true color of the carpet or the true color of the vinyl. We have all done something similar. We own a couch that sits in a particular spot and after a decade of sitting there we decide to get a new one or move it to another spot. Its movement quickly reveals the flooring's intended color. For years, the exposed carpet suffered from dirty feet, spilled coffee, and late-night ice cream. We likely grew accustomed to the ever-darkening floor, oblivious to the reality of its corruption – that is until the unexposed and preserved original color is revealed. Suddenly, we realize, by means of comparison, how dirty the floor was.
In similar fashion, John offers a comparison in chapter 18. The context and flow of the passage indicate John purposefully compares Jesus to both the religious leaders and to Peter. John offers Jesus as the ideal and the religious leaders and Peter as exposed, stained, and corrupt. Jesus is just. The religious leaders are unjust. Jesus is the True High Priest. Annas is the shell of a power hungry former high priest. Jesus motives are pure, selfless, and sacrificial. The religious leaders are driven by vengeance and greed. Jesus is faithful. Peter is unfaithful. Jesus submits to the Father’s will. Peter rejects the Father’s will. Jesus is courageous. Peter displays cowardice.
Purpose statement. Jesus’ character gloriously shines revealing the sinful and corrupt nature of all those around him.
So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.
Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in. The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not 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 the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.
Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.
Broader context. Judas has just betrayed Jesus (Jn 18). The Romans cohort and officers armed with torches and weapons entered the garden and arrested Jesus. From there Jesus was led to Annas, who sent him to his son-in-law Caiaphas, the high priest. The Jewish leaders then appealed to the Roman governor Pilate to have Jesus put to death. Luke records that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, who questioned Jesus but returned him to Pilate without rendering any judgment. Pilate then sent Jesus to be crucified at Golgotha.
Immediate context. John desires to compare/contrast Jesus with two people(s), the high priest(s) and Peter. In so doing he displays their sinfulness and his glory.
Reasons why I think John is offering a contrast. (1) He includes Annas in the narrative when no one else does. (2) John includes the servant slapping Jesus and no one else does. (3) Regarding Caiaphas, John only includes the statement made by Caiaphas and not Jesus’ interaction with him otherwise. (4) The way John lays out the interaction with Peter seems to purposefully compare the two. John goes back and forth from Jesus to Peter, first exhibiting Jesus’ immense character followed by Peter’s lack of character. I’ll more fully unpack each of these dimensions as we go.
Man’s Sinfulness Ironically Displayed by the Religious Leaders
Man’s Sinfulness Ironically Displayed by the Religious Leaders
We have already noted that John includes the interaction with Annas while the other gospel authors do not. Likely, John desires to contrast the unlawful method of Annas’ inquiry to Jesus’ innocence and lawful response.
Annas, power hungry and vengeful. The soldiers and chief priests took Jesus to Annas, who no longer held the formal role of high priests. [1] Therefore, the deposed and corrupt high priest would participate in a judgment of the True High Priest. Annas was Caiaphas’ father. While Caiaphas was technically the High Priest, Annas apparently still had much power and authority. In the annals of history, Annas and his home were known for their greed and abuse of power. In The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Book III, Chapter 5), Alfred Edersheim writes about the corruption of the temple officials.
Edersheim. The profits from the sale of meat- and drink-offerings went to the Temple-treasury. But it can hardly be believed, that such was the case in regard to the Temple-market. On the other hand, there can be little doubt, that this market was…'the Bazaars of the sons of Annas'… popular indignation, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, swept away the Bazaars of the family of Annas, and this, as expressly stated, on account of the sinful greed which characterised their dealings….These Temple-Bazaars…were the scene of the purification of the Temple by Jesus; and…[where] the final condemnation of Jesus may have been planned, if not actually pronounced.[2]
Josephus, the great Jewish historian, describes Annas as increasing his glory every day by hoarding money and cultivating friendships with powerful officials by giving gifts. Josephus writes, “he also had servants who were very wicked…and went to the threshing floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants without anyone being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.”[3] (Book of Antiquities, XX, IX, 2)
It has been speculated elsewhere[4] that Annas’ family would reject the offerings people brought on their own which would force those people to buy from the stock in the Bazaar which were incredibly overpriced. When Jesus interrupted these booths with his temple cleansing, He really annoyed this family by upsetting their profit margin.
So then, before we even consider the interaction between Annas and Jesus, we realize there is history between these two. Jesus overturned Annas’ temple business on two occasions. Annas liked power and Jesus had uniquely disrupted his business ventures. Annas wanted revenge. History displays Annas’ lust for power. Even after being removed by Rome from the formal position of high priest, he retains power with the Jews and manipulates to have his sons and son in law (Caiaphas) hold the formal position of high priest while he retained much of the power.
Contrast to Jesus. (1) Jesus is the reality of which the temple is but a shadow. Annas wanted power over the temple while Jesus fulfilled the actual role of the temple. Annas desired control of the sacrificial system. Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system as he becomes the one time, infinitely valuable sacrifice. (2) Annas’ servant strikes Jesus for inappropriately speaking to the unseated high priest, while at the same time, this entire group of soldiers and chief priests unjustly and corruptly condemn and judge the True High Priest.
Jesus, the fulfillment of the temple and True High Priest surrenders his rights to bring salvation to mankind; while Annas, a deposed and corrupt shell of a high priest, fights for power and greed. The contrast could not be more stark.
The proceedings, unjust and ignorant. Even though Jesus was justified in his question, Annas’ servant slaps and admonishes Jesus for approaching the wicked High Priest in an inappropriate manner. From a different perspective, we may see this moment consists of the Creator being slapped and admonished for not kowtowing to an evil and rebellious part of His own creation.
Jesus responds, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” (Jn 18:23). This servant displays both ignorance and injustice. He ignorantly slapped the Creator and True High Priests and he did so unjustly. Jesus, however, remained calm, patient, and logical. He did not retaliate. He simply demanded a fair trial He knew He would never get.
Ongoing ignorance. We will consider verse 28 next week as well, but let’s take just a moment to acknowledge one additional incident of profound ignorance. This religious entourage takes Jesus to the governor’s headquarters. John informs us that “they themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover” (Jn 18:28).
The commanding Roman officer set up his headquarters in the Praetorium. Pilate held this position, and when in Jerusalem, dwelt in the Praetorium. Pilate normally headquartered in Caesarea but during Jewish high feast would dwell in Jerusalem. This would allow him the ability to squelch any potential uprising.
Jewish law prohibited Jews from entering a Gentile dwelling. In entering, a Jew would become unclean and would be required to take time to regain ritual purity. If these Jewish leaders had entered the Praetorium they would have become unclean and would not have been able to participate in the rest of the Passover events. For this reason, they avoided entering.
In a rather ironic twist, these Jewish leaders desire to participate in the Passover celebration and choose to avoid legal defilement, while at the same time unjustly attempting to put to death Jesus who is the True Passover (“for Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” 1 Cor 5:7).
Unlawful proceedings. Jesus knew their law. In the Jewish system of law an individual was considered innocent until multiple accusers came forward with verifiable and legitimate accusations. This had not yet happened. Jesus was simply reminding Annas of the law. Instead of Annas simply presenting to Jesus the charges brought against Him, Annas attempted to finagle something out of Jesus that might incriminate Him. Christ exposed Annas’ hypocrisy, and Annas and his servants didn’t like it.[5]
Regardless, this trial was a sham. They had already decided, long before, that Jesus was going to have to die. John’s inclusion of Caiaphas (Annas’ son in law) reveals the predetermined conclusion for this trial. Not much earlier, Caiaphas had acknowledged to the chief priests and Pharisees, concerning Jesus, “it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish” (Jn 11:47–50). John acknowledges that Caiaphas prophetically spoke these words, but most certainly Caiaphas spoke this motivated by selfish and sinister motives.
Caiaphas, most likely, feared losing vast amounts of wealth and power if Jesus were to succeed in drawing the Jewish masses to himself. Caiaphas thought he would lose Israel if Jesus did not die. Therefore, Jesus must die instead of Caiaphas losing control over the Jewish people.
Man’s Sinfulness Sadly Displayed by Peter
Man’s Sinfulness Sadly Displayed by Peter
John desires his readers to stand amazed at the deity of Christ. Therefore, the focus is not on Peter in this passage. Peter is simply used to reveal the greatness of Christ through comparison. Let me offer some reasons for thinking that John purposely contrast Jesus and Peter.
This is the only gospel in which Peter is named in this narrative. None of the other gospels mention the name of the disciple who so boldly cut off Malchus’ ear. John does. By naming Peter, we can see the full ramifications of such a denial following such strong attestations to loyalty. Once again, we see irony in this story. Peter, who was the most boisterous in proclaiming Christ as the Messiah, is now the most determined to deny any affiliation with Him.
John goes back and forth between Jesus and Peter. All the other gospels put all three of Peter’s denials together.
Jesus with Annas —> First Denial —> Jesus with Caiaphas —> 2nd & 3rd denial —> Jesus with Pilate
John uses Peter as a tool to exalt Jesus, not to degrade Peter. The other synoptic authors offer unflattering facts involving Peter in this scenario. First, Peter’s denial was accompanied by cursing (Mt 26:74; Mk 14:71). Secondly, Jesus looked at Peter from a distance following the third denial (Lk 22:61). In Jesus look, we can almost sense the shame laid on Peter in that moment. Finally, Peter went out and wept bitterly (Mt 16:75; Mk 14:72; Lk 22:62). The other gospel authors seem to share the story from Peter’s perspective, offering additional information as to Peter’s emotional state. John, however, chooses to not present this negative perspective of Peter. John does not intend to unnecessarily defame Peter in this narrative. He does, although, choose to allow Peter to represent normal humanity in comparison to the glory of Jesus.
Some people draw implication from the story involving Peter’s actions. For instance, Bruce Milne argues Peter’s “fraternizing with the enemy is his downfall.”[6] Also, Robert Deffinbaugh recalls some sermons in which Peter’s presence at the fire equates to “warming himself by the enemy’s fire,” and we are to be warned to avoid becoming too close to the world. [7] That is not John’s purpose in the story.
Others correctly acknowledge Peter’s boldness and affection amid his betrayal. Chrysostom argues, “no one should wonder that he followed, or cry him up for his manliness. But the wonder was that matter of Peter, that being in such fear, he came even as far as the hall, when the others had retreated. His coming thither was caused by love, his not entering within by distress and fear.”[8] Deffinbaugh as well desires that the reader “give Peter credit for putting himself in harm‘s way by being there in the courtyard of Annas‘ palace….This courtyard was a dangerous place for Peter to be. Let us not think of Peter as a coward for being there. And so far as the enemy‘s fire is concerned, let us not require that Peter stand somewhere else on that bone-chilling evening, shivering in the cold. I believe that John is simply setting the scene for Peter‘s next denial, which is taken up in verses 25-27.”[9]
John avoids presenting himself in a flattering manner. John desires that the emphasis of the interaction be on Peter’s brokenness and Jesus’ glory, therefore, John chooses to avoid naming the other disciple. Besides, the other disciple’s actions are commendable and John chooses to deemphasize his presence in the story. Likely, the other disciple was John. Consistently throughout the gospel, John chooses to not name himself at any point. In this case, he probably chooses to do so, so that the focus may stay on Peter and Jesus. Chrysostom writes of this interaction. “Who is that other disciple? It is the writer himself. “And wherefore doth he not name himself? When he lay on the bosom of Jesus, he with reason concealed his name; but now why doth he this?” For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that when all had started away, he followed. Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him.”[10]
Deffinbaugh. How gracious John is here in dealing with Peter‘s failure…. I believe John‘s purpose in recording the denials of Peter is not to make Peter look bad, but rather to contrast Peter‘s testimony with that of Jesus and show how Jesus‘ words of prophecy are, once again, fulfilled exactly.[11]
While John makes a distinction between Peter and Christ, we would be wise to see this comparison not simply between Christ and Peter but between Christ and the normal reactions of mankind. Consider the comparison this passage offers.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Purpose statement. Jesus’ character gloriously shines revealing the sinful and corrupt nature of all those around him.
First, all these methods of failure and sinfulness on the part of Annas’, his servant, Caiaphas, or Peter display the typical ways in which men often fail. And, we should always first connect to the sinful characters in these types of comparisons. John offers a couple types of comparisons to consider. We likely would have acted like one of them. We would have sat arrogantly in positions of power and greed and displayed our ignorance or legalism, or like Peter we would have displayed cowardice and self-preservation. We would have failed to submit to God’s will and proven unfaithful to Christ. We probably would have reacted in one of those manners.
Secondly, remember and rejoice that your identity is wrapped up in Jesus’ perfection not your sinfulness. We must acknowledge that we are flawed, sinful, and broken people. But, as believers, we must choose to never mentally stay in that position of shame and guilt. Our identity is not wrapped up in our sinfulness but in Jesus’ righteousness. Our identity is not wrapped up in our failures but in Jesus’ perfection. Not our unfaithfulness but Jesus’ faithfulness. Not our selfishness but Jesus’ selflessness. Not our injustice, ignorance, and vengeance but in Jesus’ justice and righteousness.
[1] D. Miall Edwards, “Annas,” Orr, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 137; Elwell and Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, 115; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 581.
ISBE. “At this period the office was filled and vacated at the caprice of the Rom procurators, and Annas was deposed by Valerius Gratus, 15 AD. But though deprived of official status, he continued to wield great power as the dominant member of the hierarchy, using members of his family as his willing instruments.”
BEB. “Evidently Annas’s power and influence remained considerable even after his removal from that office. Like an American Supreme Court justice, the high priest held a lifetime appointment. Deposition of a high priest by the pagan Romans would have been strongly resented by the Jews. Consequently, Annas may still have been referred to as high priest among the populace, as a sort of high priest emeritus. Such a practice, evidenced in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, tends to clear up those references in the NT to Annas as high priest during the same chronological period as Caiaphas”
Carson. “Annas was thus the patriarch of a high priestly family, and doubtless many still considered him the ‘real’ high priest even though Caiaphas was the high priest by Roman lights.”
[2] Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1 (London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1886), 371–72.
[3] Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete & Unabridged, 538.
[4] Barclay, The Gospel of John, Volume 2, 2:263–64. “Every victim offered in the Temple had to be without spot and blemish. There were inspectors to see that it was so. If a victim was bought outside the Temple, it was certain that a flaw would be found. The worshipper was then directed to buy at the Temple booths where the victims had already been examined and where there was no risk of rejection. That would have been convenient and helpful but for one thing. Inside the Temple, a pair of doves could cost as much as fifteen times what could have been paid if bought outside. The whole business was sheer exploitation; and the shops where the Temple victims were sold were called the Bazaars of Annas.”
[5] Some modern interpreters conclude that Jesus should not have responded in this manner. He should have “turned the other cheek.” This is preposterous. What refused to let injustice go unnoticed. Jesus knew He needed to die. He would not say anything that would keep Him from the cross, but He as well was not going to let them proceed without calling them on it.
[6] Milne, The Message of John, 259.
[7] Robert Deffinbaugh, “That You Might Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John” (Biblical Studies Press, 1998), 471, https://bible.org/series/you-might-believe-study-gospel-john.
[8] Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, 14:308.
[9] Deffinbaugh, “That You Might Believe,” 471.
[10] Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, 14:308.
[11] Deffinbaugh, “That You Might Believe,” 474.