By Rev Charles Seet

Preached at / Published Life BPC 10.45am Svc, 2010-09-19

Text: John 18:12-27

The title of this message sounds like something that has to do with the courts of law, where an accused person is put on trial, and judgement is made by a judge. But have you ever heard of judges being put on trial? In April this year the judicial system in England implemented a radical programme to do just that. Nearly 2,000 fulltime judges in England and Wales will now have to spend about 4 days a year in a new judical college to be put on trial for an assessment of their courtroom skills. They have to act out trials and be judged by their peers on their performance, and they are judged on how well they manage the court, how they deal with unexpected and high-conflict situations, and also how they arrive at their rulings.

One of the aims of putting these judges on trial is to deal with incidents where British judges have made offensive and rude remarks during a trial. These off-the-cuff remarks often become the subject of newspaper headlines and public criticism. One district judge in England was even dismissed for her inappropriate, petulant and rude remarks.

Today we are going to study a passage about a trial that Jesus went through shortly after He was arrested. However we shall soon see that rather than Jesus being the one on trial, it was the people at the trial who were actually put on trial - and they proved themselves to be guilty by the things they did and said. 

I. The Incapability of Both Men

This passage presents a detailed account of two events that were running concurrently: The high priest's trial of Jesus, and Simon Peter's denials of Jesus. The scene switches back and forth between inside the palace of Annas where the trial was taking place, and the courtyard outside the palace where Peter's denials were being heard. As these two events are narrated, they reveal to us some significant points about two men - Annas and Simon Peter. Firstly, both of them were men of very high privilege: Annas was a high priest of Israel (v.19) and Peter was a disciple of Jesus Christ. 

Let us see what else is known about these two men's privileges. History tells us that Annas enjoyed the highest position of spiritual authority at that time. No one but the high priest was allowed to enter the holiest compartment in the Temple, and he could only do this once a year, on the Day of Atonement. Officially his son-in-law, Caiaphas, was now the high priest of Israel as v.13 says, but Annas was the real mastermind behind him. Annas had already served 15 years earlier as the high priest for a period of 8 years. But though he was officially retired from office after that, he continued to exert a powerful influence through all the high priests who came after him, as they were all either one of his own sons, his grandson or his son-in-law. This explains why Jesus was brought first to Annas rather than to Caiaphas immediately after His arrest.

Now we shall look at Simon Peter. From other Bible passages we know that he was one of the 12 disciples whom Jesus had carefully selected. And therefore Peter had the privilege of being personally trained and mentored by Jesus for 3 years. He turned out to be the 'star pupil' - the one who boldly confessed Jesus to be 'the Christ, the Son of the Living God' (Matthew 16:16). And Jesus praised him for this, saying, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' (v.17) Soon after that Peter witnessed the awesome transfiguration of Jesus on a high mountain together with James and John (Matthew 17:1,2). No other disciples were granted this special privilege. And Peter was always the most vocal among the disciples to profess his loyalty to the Master. He even attempted to defend Him with a sword against the mob that came to arrest Him in the Garden of Gethsemane.

So we see that both Annas and Simon Peter were men of great spiritual privilege. And yet we also see in our passage, that despite their high privileges both of them acted shamefully against the Lord and added more grief to His suffering. Annas treated Jesus just like a common criminal, interrogating Him, allowing a servant to hit Him, and sending Him bound to Caiaphas. Simon Peter on the other hand denied that he was a disciple of Christ or that he even knew Him, not just once, but three times.

From this we can learn an important lesson: Having great spiritual privileges is pointless if one does not use them to honour the Lord Jesus. So what if Annas was the high priest? That did not stop him from mistreating the Great High Priest. So what if Peter was the chief of Christ's disciples? That did not stop him from dishonouring his Master by denying that He was his Master at all.

If you are blessed with great spiritual privileges, please don't allow them to make you proud or complacent. For instance, you may be born into a good Christian family, and have the privilege of growing up under godly nurture and instruction. But that will not necessarily make you spiritually stronger than others. You may have been attending this church for umpteen years, but that does not necessarily make you a good Christian. And you may be entrusted with important duties in church and even be elected as a pastor, elder or deacon. But that does not make you immune to spiritual defeat. I am sure you know the saying, 'the higher they are the harder they fall.' To whom much privilege is given therefore, much vigilance is also required as well as much humility.

Now apart from these points that we have seen of both Annas and Peter, there are other significant points which can only be observed in what each of them did. 

II. The Injustice of Annas

Let us look at Annas and begin by considering what he was supposed to do at the high priest of Israel. One passage that can help us understand what a high priest was supposed to do is Hebrews 5:1-4 'For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.'

This tells us that to qualify to be a high priest, a man had to be able to handle things pertaining to God. In order to do this, he obviously had to be holy and above reproach in all matters. According to v.2, a high priest also had to have a selfless compassion on the ignorant and on those who had gone astray. This means that he was to love the people well and minister gently and humbly to their needs. And v.4 says that no man should take the honour of being a high priest unto Himself. And so this sacred office was clearly not meant for any ambitious, self-serving, greedy man to assume. 

And yet this was exactly what Annas was. History tells us that he was an arrogant, astute, ambitious and enormously wealthy priest. You may have noticed that according to v.15 he lived in a palace. How had he become so rich? Well, Annas was notorious for his rapacity and greed. His family had a monopoly on the sale of sheep, doves and olive oil for the sacrifices at the Temple. Every Israelite who came to offer sacrifices had no choice but to purchase these things at exorbitant prices from one of the many shops that his family owned.

You may remember that from our earlier study of John chapter 2 we had seen how Jesus had used a whip to drive out all those who sold animals in the Temple, rebuking them for turning His Father's house into a house of merchandise (v.16). Those animal sellers were the employees of Annas. This righteous act probably incurred his wrath against Jesus since it would have affected his business severely. With such worldly behaviour, Annas was most unqualified to be a priest, let alone to serve as Israel's high priest. 

Annas was also most unqualified to serve as a judge, let alone to be judge over the Lord Jesus. According to v.14 his son-in-law Caiaphas had already determined that Jesus must die. In any court of law, the sentence is given at the end, and never at the beginning. All the evidence has to be weighed first, and the witnesses testimonies must be heard and the sentence can only be given when these have proven that a crime has been committed. But in the trial of Jesus the death sentence was already given. It was now up to Annas to find a crime to justify such a sentence. And the only way that Annas could do this was to violate many laws of conducting a trial. 

The laws of Israel on how trials were to be conducted were widely reputed to ensure that justice was always served. In fact these laws have laid the foundation for the judicial systems of the world. Their origins can be traced all the way back to Jewish laws regarding trials. One law states that all trials are to be held in the day time, so that members of the public could come and watch all the proceedings. But the 3 trials that Jesus went through all took place between about 1 am and 6 am while everyone was still asleep. This may have been done intentionally to keep them from public view, because Annas and Caiaphas feared that the multitudes of Jerusalem would hinder their plans to execute Jesus. 

Besides specifying the time when trials are to be conducted, Jewish Law also required a clear charge or accusation to be brought by someone before anyone could be put on trial, and self-incrimination was never allowed. But here we see that when Jesus was put on trial, no charge or accusation was made against Him. Instead, v.19 tells us that the high priest asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. Annas did this to find something incriminating in the Lord's answer that he could use as a criminal charge against Him. For example, he hoped to accuse Jesus of recruiting and teaching disciples secretly for subversive activities. But all his efforts proved to be futile because Jesus had been totally above board in His ministry, and had done nothing in secret (vv.20,21). 

Besides that, the Law also required the presence of at least 2 credible witnesses to testify against the accused before he could be sentenced. And the accused had the right to speak in his own defence without any threat of physical abuse. However Annas had no witnesses at all to testify against Jesus. Jesus on the other hand, had many who would readily take the witness stand to testify for Him. That's why he said in v.21 'Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.' For making this legitimate defence, Jesus was struck by one of the officers (v.22). And the high priest did absolutely nothing to stop that officer or even reprimand him for hurting Jesus. I am sure that you can see that this was a clear travesty of justice.

As this first trial of Jesus ended, it was clear that the high priest had run out of options despite violating so many laws in conducting the trial. The only thing he could do was to send Jesus over to his son-in-law Caiaphas to conduct another trial. Verse 23 shows us that Jesus had the last word and Annas had no reply. Therefore instead of proving the Lord's guilt, this trial actually ended up proving His innocence and revealing the gross injustice of Annas the high priest. 

One day Annas will have to give an account for all his acts of injustice. And who will be the judge to pass the judgment when he is put on trial? No one else but the supreme Judge who sits on His great white throne - the Lord Jesus Christ! The roles will be reversed, but this time the judgment will be absolutely just. And what sentence will Annas receive for all his sins? To spend eternity in torment, languishing in the lake of fire and brimstone (Revelation 20:11-15).

Perhaps you may be someone who will also have to give an account for his or her sins before that Judge one day. Unless you are saved, you will share the same end as Annas. Perhaps you may have heard the gospel of Christ many times before, but you refuse to accept it because you have judged Jesus unjustly, you have dismissed all His claims too hastily, and given Him no fair hearing. What can you say then when you are put on trial before Jesus and He condemns you to a hopeless end? 

Please don't let this be your end. Turn to Christ right now while you still can, while His grace is still available, and ask Him to save you from your sins and from eternal death. If you do that, you will not share the same end as Annas. Instead of that, you will share the same blessed end as Simon Peter. Let us find out what his end was-

III. The Inconsistency of Peter

According to v.27, when Peter had denied Christ the third time, he heard the sound of a cock crowing. For a more detailed picture of this let us turn to Luke 22:60 'And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. 61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.'

Here we observe that although Peter had failed this trial miserably he did realize how much grief He had caused to the Lord Jesus. He went out and wept bitterly in deep repentance for his sin of denying His Lord three times. And later on the Lord restored him fully, and he went on to take his place in the Church as an apostle whom God used mightily. Finally, Peter died a martyr's death by being crucified upside down and he went home to be with the Lord Jesus.

What happened to Peter here shows us that there is hope for a Christian after failure. Though at times we may fail and even bring shame to the name of Christ through our selfish compromise and sins, there is always forgiveness from God if we truly repent. And so what you must do after you fail is to confess your sins! That is the way to be restored to loving fellowship and faithful service. Cling to the wonderful promise that He is faithful and just to forgive your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness. And after you are restored learn lessons from your failure that will help you to grow spiritually. I am sure that Peter himself must have done this as he reflected on what happened. 

He may have thought of what it was that had made him fall. Firstly, the unwise choice that he made - Peter chose to stay outside when he could have gone with his fellow disciple John into the palace of the high priest to be with Jesus. If he had been inside with John and Jesus he would perhaps have been able to resist any temptation better. From this we can learn a useful lesson - We should always seek to be with Lord and His people, and never think that we are strong enough to stand alone and do not need them. Isolating ourselves from God's people is a sure way to fall. 

The devil is just like a roaring lion, waiting for the opportunity to strike when his prey becomes isolated from all the rest. Peter had probably stayed outside because of fear - the fear of being known as a disciple of Jesus. Perhaps he had hoped that the darkness would make it impossible for anyone to recognize him. But he now found himself in the company of the high priest's servants and officers who were warming themselves by a fire. And they were part of the mob that had arrested Jesus just awhile earlier. As the cold night air drew Peter closer and closer to the fire, the light of that fire shone on his face, and everyone there could see him clearly. Here was the perfect opportunity for Satan to bring Peter down.

The devil's temptation sometimes comes from the least expected sources. According to v.17 it was the young servant girl who kept the door who looked at Peter closely and said, 'Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?' Peter may have thought to himself, 'She's only a young girl. It doesn't really matter if I am honest to her or not. A little lie to a little girl will do no harm.' The easiest answer to give was, 'I am not.' This may also be due to the way that the question was phrased. It can be translated like this: 'You are not one of this man's disciples, are you?' This naturally anticipates the answer, 'I'm not.'

The devil often makes it easy for us to fall. And once we take the bait that he dangles before us, he moves in for the kill by using one of the oldest tricks in the book. You see, once you start telling a lie, you can't stop. Circumstances will force you to tell another lie to back up the previous one. And so you keep on propagating that lie and substantiating it until it grows to monstrous proportions. 

This was exactly what happened to Peter. You will notice that according to v.25, after the servant girl's question to him, the next question came from the servants and officers in the courtyard. And they asked him the same question that the girl had asked: 'You are not one of this man's disciples, are you?' Again the expected answer was, 'I'm not.' This time, we are told that Peter denied it, and said, 'I am not.' This means that this second denial was much more emphatic than the first one. 

Then came the third question. And we notice that this time, the one who asked the question was an eyewitness who had a personal interest in identifying Peter. He had been seen Peter cutting off the ear of a servant named Malchus when Jesus was arrested, and Malchus happened to be his own kinsman. And his question to Peter was different from the other two. He said, 'Did I not see you in the garden with him?' It was a direct question which expected the answer, 'Yes, you did.'

I think we can see how cunning Satan was to put this question from the eyewitness right at the end. If Peter had been asked this question first by that eyewitness, he probably wouldn't have denied Christ at all. But because he had already committed himself to tell a lie, he was led step by step to build it up until he blatantly denied that he knew Christ despite such glaring confirmation that he had been seen with Jesus. 

The other gospel accounts tell us that by the time of this third denial Peter was actually cursing and swearing, 'I don't know this man that you are talking about!' That's what a person does when he finds himself cornered by the truth: He denies it more vehemently and vociferously hoping to shoo it away. But nothing can keep the truth away for long. Your secret sins will find you out. And when it does, your dishonesty will be exposed and your testimony before the world will be shattered. In the case of Peter, he rushed out and wept bitterly when this happened. 

This may also indicate that all his fears from the beginning were completely unfounded. Peter had been so afraid of what they would do to him if they knew that he was a disciple of Jesus. But the servants and officers made no attempt to restrain Peter or arrest him after they knew that he was a disciple. Even that relative of Malchus who might seek revenge for the damaged ear did nothing to him. Peter was able to leave that courtyard totally unharmed. Why was this so? The answer to this may be found in what Jesus hod told the mob earlier on. Let us look at v.8 'Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.' The Lord had already given Himself up to His enemies in exchange for the safety of His disciples. Now that they had got Him, they had no intentions to take any of His disciples. 

And so Peter really had no reason at all to fear that his life was in danger. He could have gone right into the palace of the high priest to be with Jesus, just as John his fellow disciple had done. He did not need to stay outside in the cold courtyard and make himself so vulnerable to Satan's attacks. He did not need to hide the fact that he was a disciple of Christ from the people there. He did not need to resort to telling them a lie. He did not need to deny Jesus three times and destroy his testimony before the world after all!

Let this be a lesson to all of us not to allow our lives to be ruled by fear. Fear is a very powerful force that can make you fall into sin very easily. It was fear that caused the Israelites to rebel against God in the wilderness when they heard exaggerated reports about the Canaanites from the 10 spies. It was fear that caused King Saul to sin by offering a forbidden sacrifice instead of waiting for the prophet Samuel's arrival. And as we have just seen, it was fear that caused Peter's downfall during the trial of Jesus. But in all these instances, the fears were completely unfounded. There was actually nothing to fear. 

What should we do then, when our hearts are gripped with an irrational fear? Turn to God in prayer and trust Him. The psalmist said, 'What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee.' (Psalm 56:3). Remember the words of David in the 23rd psalm 'Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me.'

Besides teaching us to overcome fear, what happened to Peter should also teach us the importance of loving Jesus more than we love ourselves. If only Peter's heart had been filled with selfless love for His master, he would probably not have denied Him so easily. He learned this lesson later on when the resurrected Jesus restored him by asking him three times, 'Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?' (John 21:15-17) 

Love is the greatest of all virtues, and love is the most powerful force that can work in the hearts of men - even more powerful than fear. It was love that brought our Lord Jesus down to earth. It was love that caused Him to surrender to the Father's will to be arrested at Gethsemane. It was love that brought Him to the palace of the high priest to be put on trial there. It was love that enabled Jesus to endure the injustice of Annas, and to receive the painful blow from his servant. It was love that sent Him to the cross soon after that to die for our sins.

Love is therefore what we all need if we are ever put on trial for our faith. We must be aflame for Christ! May we learn to love our Lord Jesus enough to confess before all men that He is our Lord and Saviour, and to bear the cost of making that confession.

• Prev
• Next