The Trials of Jesus: An Examination of Peter's Denial

Welcome, welcome. This is the Milk Gathering of CAMPUS.

We’ll begin with prayer, then singing the word set to music, then we’ll sit in silence for a few minutes and when we come back we are going to wrap up John chapter 18 today.

Prayer
Sing
Silence

Okay we left off with Peter and presumably John entering into place of the high priest. The way John writes it it’s a tad bit confusing on whether what Jesus is about to experience happened in the presence of Anna’s or Caiaphas. One reason for this is because after describing Jesus being slapped etc here in this setting John THEN adds (at verse 24) “Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.”

Verse 24 should be after verse 13 for continuities sake but its not so it seems like John is telling us that Jesus was slapped in the presence of Annas. Again, we have no idea what happened in that setting and all that John describes here occurred under Caiaphas. Okay, so we left off with Peter staying outside of Caiaphas’s palace and (presumably John) going in.

Let’s read at verse 16 John 18.28 March 29th 2015 Milk

Peter's First Denial

John 18:16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. 17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. 18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. 19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. 20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. 21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. 22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? 24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. 25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. 26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

The Nature of Denial

John 18:16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, “Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?” He saith, “I am not.” It’s intriguing that Peter’s first denial was to a slave girl. The Greek word for Damsel is PA HEE DIS KA and it means girl – not woman or child but a girl. Maybe it was the fact that she guarded the door, or the fact that she had the temerity to ask. Whatever the reason, her question resulted in Peter denying Him. We often talk about Peter’s denial but when we think of it, His denial was also a lie. Almost like it was a double dog sinMissing the mark of faith and love—no punishment, just lost growth or peace. – a lie and a denial of the Lord all in one.

I suppose when we lie as a means to deny someone or something the whole basis is founded on being ashamed or embarrassed or fearful over the person or situation of which we are ashamed. It is almost as natural a response in the human condition as breathing. Why? It’s a product of our fallen nature. Literally, the corruption of our flesh. Going all the way back to the Garden of Eden we read in Genesis 2:25 regarding Adam and Eve prior to the fall: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” See, Adam and

The State of Innocence and Shame

Eve – innocent and relating to God wholly by the Spirit would have no reason to be ashamed of their nakedness in the presence of God who created them. Why would they? The state was as natural as a leopard in its skin, the trees in their shape, and the lambs in their wool. Beautiful. Perfect. Undefiled and without any darkness at all. So they were unashamed.

Of course we know when the fig leaves came out – when they were in sin, when their flesh took control, when they were weak in the Spirit and their flesh was in opposition to what their spirit said. The result? The direct result of their action of disobedience?

Genesis 3:6-8
“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.”

The Fall of Man

Before Peter’s denials, before Judas betrayals, before David’s Uriah, before Abraham’s deceptions, Adam and Eve introduced to the world three S’s that define the fall of Man and cause us to hide – from God and Man: Self, Sin, and Shame. They used fig leaves and then literally tried to hide from God. We re-read Genesis 3:6-8 which describes Eve’s point of view before eating the forbidden fruit:

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The Sequence of Self, Sin, and Shame

God had said, “Don’t,” you have been show or told the truth – it will kill you but Eve served her self, her will, her desires, her wisdom. The self always comes before the sin – always. Our will or His – simple as that. Once the self is the focus of our service and allegiance and devotion there is only one end result – sin. Hamartia – to miss the mark. In God’s economy the mark is first Him – loving Him and second others – loving them. The self is always last.

I get really perplexed by that trend in Christianity that popped up a while back that was called, “I am Second.” What a lie. If we were going to trend out anything that would represent Christianity it should probably be: “I am last, not second.” In any case, self – the natural focus – will always lead to sin (or missing the mark to love God and Man). And then when that is the case we are introduced to the third “S” – shame.

I have a good friend who called me last week and told me he ran into a bunch of colleagues from work (none of whom are believers) and when he walked in the room they greeted him with stares. They were all long time friends and when he approached them the subject came up about his Christianity. He said, “you know what Shawn. I was ashamed of my faith. I was ashamed of being identified with Christ.”

We talked about it. It is not uncommon. Remember, what it operating or taking over in those moments is nothing more than our flesh – its sole purpose is to protect itself, and to pander to all the things that make it look appealing, acceptable, and of value (wise) in this world. Peter was simply caught in a moment when his flesh was stronger than his spirit. He’ll have his two more such moments in a minute.

Acknowledging Our Inability to Hide

A great inoculation against the flesh failing in this way (which again, is entirely natural for human beings) is to remember that we have no capacity to hide ANYTHING (at all) from God. Anything. We may serve the self. We may sin. But realizing this – and being open to it will go a long way in helping us to avoid being ashamed – especially of our Lord.

Jeremiah 23:24 says
“Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see”

Omnipresence of God

Psalm 139:7-8 says, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.”

Denial and lies – the kneejerk reactions of flesh rising up – are all founded on hiding. Hiding is founded in covering or protecting the self. A focus on the self leads to sin. And sin to shame or being ashamed.

Verse 18, in an indirect manner, illustrates how Peter served himself again, and found himself in a position to sin . . . again.

18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed (WHO) himself. I mean we can’t blame the man – it was cold outside, right? A totally natural and reasonable thing to do when it’s cold – warm yourself. The difficulty is Peter chose to warm himself by the enemies' fire. And in so doing he set himself up for another fail.

Peter's Choices and Their Consequences

I’m not criticizing Peter. There but for the grace of God go I. I get it. But due to the story presented, we have the benefit of observing a situation and then learning a principle – which is?

(beat)

Maybe it’s to make the decision to sell out for God in advance – to be cold when his enemies are warm, be sober when they are drunk, be hungry when they are full. It’s not that such things earn us brownie points but to me they show an ardent allegiance – and they clearly illustrate to those that rejoice in the things of the world around us that you don’t care about their machinations and ways.

We actually see such an attitude come out of the apostles later in life once they were filled with the Holy Spirit. It comes out in their attitude toward teaching, being beaten, imprisoned, and even killed for Christ.

Tradition says that Peter, when he was about to be crucified, asked that it be done upside down that he not mock the offering of Christ through his demise. That speaks to me of a man who was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.

Jesus Before the High Priest

John now turns to Jesus on trial, verse 19. Remember where we left off here because John is going to come back to Peter warming himself in about six verses. So speaking now of Jesus, John writes:

19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

Asking Jesus of His disciples probably refers to the number and amount or His demands of them. So political. Always snooping about trying to have their hand on the pulse as a means to manipulate. This was probably an effort to bolster the charge against Jesus of sedition or rallying the people up against Caesar.

The more disciples, the more dangerous the faction He was leading. Asking specifics about His “doctrine” seems to be an attempt to trap Him.

20 Jesus answered him, “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”

Understanding Jesus' Response

Now, if we are going to be biblical literalists – which I once was in every application – we would have trouble with this statement of the Lord – we might even be able to charge Him with deception. How can I say this?

There were places where Jesus would heal and would say, “Tell no man” what I have done to the person healed. Additionally, He frequently took the disciples separately and trained and taught them things that were not for anyone else. He explained His parables to them and them alone and even told them so. We also know that He taught that they were not to cast pearls before swine and that in John 7:10 it says, speaking of Jesus: “But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.”

So, to take this line literally I think we would have to take exception. But if we look at the principle of what He is saying, especially in relation to their intent to label Him a seditionist, NOTHING He said or taught could ever

Examination of Jesus' Teachings and His Confrontation

They were trying to make Him and His teachings a form of subverting Moses, and the Law, and the Roman government. Nothing could be further from the truth. He openly taught His purposes and doctrines and all that He taught – privately to the apostles or publicly in synagogue or the temple – were void of sedition. Treasonable toward the Roman government? Hardly. He never really even addresses the Roman Government. Uprooting the Mosaic order of things? He actually taught that He was there to fulfill it, not destroy it.

Public and Private Consistency in Jesus' Teachings

The central message of all He taught He says he taught “openly to the world.” In other words, the general thrust of His entire message as to the world for the saving of the world and was presented, in Spirit, the same in His private conversations as well as His public teachings. If He had aims at overwhelming the world or Jerusalem or Israel with His teachings, He would have trained his friends with duplicitous doctrines – appearing friendly and fun in public but having diabolical intentions in private. Not so. Then Jesus adds a comment, saying:

21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

What He is doing here is actually He is insisting on His rights and reproves the high-priest for his unjust and illegal manner of extorting a confession from him. In other words, and according to the law, if Jesus had done wrong, or taught seditious doctrines it would be easy to prove – get witnesses. That would be fair and incontrovertible. What was he asking Him for?

We touch on something we touched on last week – though Jesus was willing to be reviled and persecuted, yet he also insisted that justice be at least petitioned for. He was conscious of innocence and he had no issue proclaiming it. In the face of this, we see a model for ourselves. If we are innocent and we are being reviled and persecuted we too can bear it while insisting on our rights. Contextually, we certainly will turn the other cheek but we also may be showing love to the slapper when we express our innocence. Speaking of slappers, verse 22

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, “Answerest thou the high priest so?”

Jesus' Interaction with Authority

When it says one of the officers the Greek SEEMS to be describing an inferior officer to Caiaphas. Additionally, though the King James says he struck Jesus with the palm of his hand it could have been with a rod or it could have been with a closed fist. The Syriac translation reads "Smote the cheek of Jesus." And both the Vulgate and Arabic say, "Gave him a blow." However it was done it was a violation of the Law because He had not been found guilty.

Now, we can see the words Jesus and the reaction that followed them in a couple of ways. He said it kindly and was abused for speaking at all. Many people assign such delivery to Jesus at all times. OR He said it sarcastically (or with some contempt in his voice) and he was wrongfully abused as not yet being found guilty. Either way, the punishment was unlawful. I don’t know why we think that everything Jesus said was super soft and friendly. Meekness and mildness is relative to the circumstance as is the administration of love. There are a number of instances where Jesus is obviously speaking strong words to people. Vipers, children of hell, and the like.

We do have to remember that the Bible language is essentially oriental (which means where the sun rises) rather than occidental (meaning where the sun sets) And when Jesus speaks it is littered with metaphor and all sorts of exaggerations. Exaggeration is as endemic to ancient oriental language as dude is to a surfer. So while there may have been some biting phrases delivered, I’m not sure we will ever be capable of understanding what they really mean. We have to admit though that the one who struck Jesus does say: “Answerest thou the high priest so?” So it SOUNDS like either the words Jesus used or the deliver was somehow not acceptable at least by the lowly servant.

Later on in Acts we read something interesting from Paul. It says in chapter 23 (beginning at verse 1): Acts 23:1 “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, ‘Men and brethren, I

Biblical Lessons on Justice and Hypocrisy

have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.’

2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. 3 Then said Paul unto him, ‘God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?’ 4 And they that stood by said, ‘Revilest thou God's high priest?’

The term whited wall is obviously some sort of colloquialism that means hypocrite. And obviously Paul delivered it when he was angered. Was it wrong? Was it sin? Or was he within his rights – both as a citizen and as a man on a mission from God? Must have been justified – as was Jesus in all He said yet was without sin. (verse 23)

23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Again, He appeals to justice. If I have spoken evil bear witness of it. But if my words were good, why do you smite me?

Contextual Uses of "Revile"

The word revile is used in Exodus where Moses wrote this to the COI: Exodus 22:28 “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” And Jesus may have been appealing to it specifically when he asks His question. The word for gods there is a lower case g and means simply those who are put in place to lead and judge and govern. Here Jesus seems to be calling the servant out on his action – again, the just thing to do. Confront and discuss. From His words, and on the other side of the coin, it seems Jesus believed His had NOT shown any disrespect or used any pejoratives toward Caiaphas.

Verse 24 is that verse that, for consistencies sake, seems like it would have fit better after verse 13. 24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

Okay, verse 25 gives us another illustration of John’s writing style which is anything but linear. This passage should have followed verse 18 which says:

18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed (WHO) himself. But John picks this line back up at verse 25 and says:

25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, “Art not thou also one of his disciples?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” Denial number two.

26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith (in other words someone related to Malchus whose ear Peter chopped off asked) Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

Moments of Self-Reflection

Have you ever had a cock crow moment in your life . . . the time when your words or actions all come rushing back in around you and expose your sins for what they were?

They say that the author of the beautiful hymn, Come thou Font of Every Blessing ( ) fell back into the world and one evening was getting into a carriage with a prostitute and she was actually humming or whistleing the tune he wrote when he was living the faith. It is said that he said at that time: My dear, my own words convict me. A rooster crowing moment.

I have them every time I witness one of my children evidence an inappropriate attitude that came directly from me. And I cringe.

I heard a news report a few months back that a man who had walked out on his family was in a town traveling as a salesman and hired a call girl to come to his room and his own daughter showed up. That rooster won’t shut up, right?

Luke’s account of Peter’s denial says that once the cock crowed that “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. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.”

We make a tremendous noise about the way our words and actions effect the lives of others. That our witness can cause others to fall and stumble and fail from faith. I think these warnings are true.

But I am also personally of the opinion that God being God He will make ALL things right and

Concept of Justice and Eternal Punishment

Just and that when we leave this realm the harm and the injustices we have caused purposely and inadvertently will be leveled and made good in the end. It is yet another reason I have issue with the notion of eternal punishment for the unsaved. It’s a hard pill to swallow to think that I have contributed to the actual demise of other peoples souls (for instance, when I shared with them a false gospel) that I would get to enter heaven fat dumb and happy but because of me they would suffer eternally. How could heaven be heaven in any sense of the word?

We all make mistakes with our children – driving some of them away from God rather than to Him. Are we to believe that our actions can cause some to reject God but we ourselves get to enjoy Him for an eternity while those we influenced burn forever in unremitted flames? Working this all out we trust in the living loving God to reconcile all things to Him in the end – no matter how failing and faltering they may be.

Trial of Jesus Before Caiaphas

At this point Joh doesn’t tell us the results of Jesus before Caiaphas but we know that they condemned Him to deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God.. The charges were insurrection, Sabbath breaking, making Himself God or King. This was the culminated charge that really set them against Him.

Matthew 26 beginning at verse 63 reads:

“And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."

Religious Hypocrisy

Verse 28 introduces us to the height of religious hypocrisy – ready:

28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

The hall of judgment is also known as the praetorium. It was a place that Pilate held court. Jesus, being condemned, was led by the soldiers away from the Jews, within this palace, and subjected to their profane mockery and sport. It was the place where the Roman praetor, or governor, heard and decided cases brought before him. As we said, Jesus had been condemned by the Sanhedrim, and pronounced guilty of death but the Jews didn’t have the power under Roman authority to carry their sentence into execution so they therefore sought that he might be condemned and executed by Pilate.

They had held a kangaroo court – illegal according to the Law but here’s the irony – they wouldn’t enter into the Hall of Judgment “lest they should be defiled.” See, they considered even the touch of a Gentile to be a defilement, and on this occasion, at least, right before the Passover meal, they seemed to believe it as a pollution to enter the house of a Gentile. So the trial was held outside – possibly on a balcony – that is how the artists always render it – you know, with Jesus inside the hall with Pilate but the Jews all standing outside and communicating by yelling etc.

Hypocrisy Unveiled

This is one of the greatest illustrations of men making sure the outside of the platter is clean while internally they were filthy and full of criminality, larceny, and hatred and envy. In these days they were so concerned with appearances that they would send people out to whitewash tombs so they appeared white and shining and of course Jesus took this practice and likened it to their own souls, saying:

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Because it was this very crime – religious hypocrisy – that was employed in the ill treatment and death of the Lord I can’t help but wonder if this is why religious hypocrisy seems to be the thing that bothered Him most when He walked

The Earth

And probably even now.

Questions/Answers