Dennis Tuuri

# Sermon Transcript: John 18:12-28

We return this morning to the Gospel of John. And we are now in that portion of the Gospel that the passion narrative has begun. You’ll remember that the last time we spoke from this gospel, we’re in the opening verses of chapter 18 where Jesus is arrested and then led off to the high priest. So, the psalm we just recited and sang is most appropriate for our narrative this morning in which Jesus is attacked with sharpened tongues.

Please stand for reading of God’s word. John 18:12-28. Hear the word of the Lord. Then the detachment of troops and the captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. And they led him away to Annas first for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas who was high priest that year. 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 of 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 the 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’re 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. Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning.

But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

Let’s pray. Father, we thank you for your most holy word. We thank you for the gift of the Holy Spirit. We pray now that your spirit would help us to understand this text. And much more than that, help this text to transform us. Smite us, Lord God, with your sharp two-edged sword. Cleave us that we might repent and then heal us that we might serve you in power and strength.

In Christ’s name we ask, and for the sake of his kingdom, not ours. Amen.

Please be seated.

We come today to a text that has within it a very commonly known story in terms of the passion narrative of our savior. The three-fold denial of Christ by Peter. This is recorded in each of the four gospels. It is of great importance. John has his particular way of presenting it to us which we’ll talk about as we go through this morning’s sermon.

I have today a tie on that I chose deliberately for this sermon. Young children, you know, I may not have given you a children’s outline, but I brought a tie that has a little picture. You’ll remember, as my daughter did this morning when I asked her about what this was about, Jesus walking on the water. She remembered too that there was this Peter who also walked on the water and then his faith failed him and he started to sink and Christ rescued him.

So, we have Jesus and Peter by way of picture walking on the water and we see Peter’s failure and we see here in this text today again Peter’s failure and it’s set in a particular way.

Now I believe that this structure that I’ve given you for your outlines which contains the text that we just read in a particular structure—a mirror structure again—sort of jumps off the page at us. And the thing that really helps us to see that this structure seems to be there is the fact that we have this warming and denying account going on in the context of the center of the narrative which is the questioning of Jesus.

So as Peter rather is led into the high priest court—well, I began and ended with the leading into Caiaphas’s or into Annas’s place and then being led to Pilate as the two brackets of this—but then Peter goes into this courtyard of the high priest and then we’re told that when he enters into this courtyard that he has his first denial. And after that denial, there’s this reference to men standing together making a fire and warming themselves and Peter being there as well.

And then after this center investigation of Christ by the high priest, we don’t go to the denial first. Now we go back to the warming statement first and then we go to the next two denials. Now denials one and two, the way they’re phrased in this particular—what John has recorded of those interactions between the groups and Peter—these are nearly identical in this particular text. In both cases, the question is put so that it expects a no answer.

“You’re not one of his disciples, are you?” Well, no, I’m not. So, it’s easy. And it also gives us a literary match between the first and second denials. And then on either side coming inward to the middle of the text are these warming statements. So, denial, warming statement, warming statement, exact same phrase in terms of the question and the denial. And then the third and final denial, which is different.

And we’ll talk about that difference as we go along. So I’ve tried to help you see the way this narrative flows as a way of understanding the component elements. At the very center is the questioning of Christ by the high priest. But bracketed around that questioning of Christ by the high priest are this interaction that focuses on Peter. And so we have Peter as this main character in this event, the high priest and then of course Jesus being interviewed by the high priest at the center.

Now on these outlines what I—on this outline in each section A for instance says Jesus talks or taken rather to the high priest in 1-0. What this is just references to how often the term high priest is used and how often the term Peter is used. So in this first section we have the term high priest used once and Peter is not referred to. Each of the sections I’ve given you how many times these terms are repeated. The reason I’ve done this is to help you to see that in the flow of this particular narrative, we have an eightfold occurrence of the term high priest, an eightfold occurrence of Peter.

And it seems that there’s a significance to that, which I’ll continue to draw out in the context of the sermon.

Many people take this text and do some of the things that we’ll talk about in the context of the sermon today. And usually you’ll see a comparison drawn between Jesus and Peter, and that’s proper. Clearly, they both suffer temptation and one and one fails. But I think that the text itself draws our attention to some kind of correlation between the actions of Peter and the actions of the high priest.

And that’ll become more evident as we go along in the text. So we’ll simply work our way through the text this morning. We’ll deal first then with the A section where Jesus is taken to the high priest. So the band of soldiers, their captain, 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 the high priest that year. Here it was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.

Now in the first note I have underneath that section I have the phrase “breakdown of the religious order.” It’s more complicated than I can present it. But several things you should know historically are going on at this point in time to help you understand the text. One, the Zadokite priesthood that was required by the law has been subverted by the Maccabees. And in fact the last Zadokite priest heir to the high priestly throne was killed and murdered by the Jews many years before.

So we already have a breakdown of the religious order by a shift from Zadokite priesthood to Hasmonean priesthood. And you know don’t worry about those names. The point is the treachery in terms of the religious order has been going on since the time of the Maccabees. And it helps correct what some of us might think of the Maccabees as a really good group of guys. They had this fatal flaw where they rejected the religious order that God had established.

Even more so though it gets confusing to us in this text: Who’s high priest and who isn’t? When the high priest questions Jesus, who is it, Annas or Caiaphas? Why are they both referred to as the high priest? Well, the situation is that Annas is the older man here. Caiaphas is his son-in-law. Annas reigned as high priest from, I think, 6 to 15 AD, somewhere around there, but no longer. Now, you say, “What did he die?” No.

We know that the law made the high priest office perpetual. He was supposed to reign until he died. And that was significant in the scriptures, the death of the high priest pointing to the death of Christ. But what had happened by this time is that the Roman occupying government didn’t want the high priesthood to be perpetual. And so they dictated who was going to be the high priest. Now clearly Annas had a lot to do.

He was a co-conspirator with Rome against the proper religious order. He exercised authority by being a compatriot with the Roman occupying army because at least four or five of his sons served as high priest after he did. Even one of his grandsons apparently and even though his daughter couldn’t serve as high priest, her daughter’s husband Caiaphas becomes high priest now. So the idea is that Annas is the power behind the throne.

He’s sort of the high priest in everybody’s mind because he’s got the authority and power working with the Romans to inject or impose rather a different high priest every couple of years. Says that year doesn’t mean with just one year terms. Whenever the Roman government thought it should swap out somebody, they would do so. Annas was though the leader here. So that’s why he’s referred to as the high priest at times, even though he’s not serving as high priest.

It’s can be an honorary term, but more than that, he’s the power behind all of these high priests that are immediately related to him.

Now, the high priests were not thought of well—you may not know this either. The Talmud talks about Annas and what a bad guy he was. The people he beat the people with staves. Why would they dislike him? Well, the high priest did the inspection of the religious animals.

He oversaw to make sure that none of the animals had blemishes or spots on them. And so what he decided to do, Annas, was if you brought your own animal, almost assuredly it would have a spot or blemish on it. But lo, these animals we’ll sell you here in the court of the Gentiles in the temple itself—these animals you can buy from us and they’ve already been guaranteed. So don’t worry about bringing your animals, buy it here. Quite a deal of convenience. However, the price for the animals in the courtyard of the Gentiles was 15 to 20 times the actual market value of an animal outside of the temple courtyard. So, the high priest became a millionaire in a year’s time with this kind of sale going on. So, these were very powerful, very influential, very rich men who were in total, you know, collaboration with the occupying Roman government.

So what by referencing both Annas and Caiaphas at the beginning of this narrative, the text draws our attention to this complete breakdown of the religious order. And that’s significant for what this text will show us in terms of Peter. It’s also significant if we know our Old Testament and what the death of the priesthood meant. Since these priesthood offices were now term offices, we never had the death of a high priest. Very, it’s not going to happen. But see, that death of a high priest was significant for two events in the Old Testament. One was release from the cities of refuge. When people had killed somebody and it wasn’t murder, the relatives would go to get them. They’d fly to the city of refuge and they’d be released from that when the high priest died. And secondly, all of Israel was released from the city of refuge, so to speak, the wilderness with the death of Aaron.

This is what marked the transition for the children of Israel to get ready to march into the promised land. Now, all of this is a picture of the death of Christ, the great high priest, who brings us out of bondage to sin and brings us into liberty as the children of God. But this no longer can happen in Israel. Now, remember that the Sabbath and the failure to move into Sabbath rest that Christ offers them is a big theme in this book.

Remember the men at the sheep gate, right? 38 years lame. Israel is lame. They’re in the wilderness still. They’re never going to get out with their present system because the high priest won’t die by way of symbol or picture. You see, Israel is pictured once more as ensnared, complete breakdown to the religious order.

Now before we move on from this first section, the other thing I want to point out here quite clearly is God’s sovereignty in this text. We see it here and we see it as the text unfolds. Here where we see it is that Caiaphas, this wicked man set up by his father-in-law and one of these guys that brutalizes people and robs Israel, etc., etc., this bad guy, has actually spoken of true prophecy that one man to die for the sins of the nation. Now, what he’s going to do is kill an innocent man that he knows is innocent. That’s what he’s saying.

So, he’s a murderer. Caiaphas is. But God speaks through his mouth. Truth. We have the absolute sovereignty of God over the worst of his enemies pictured for us in this text. Not just here. After all, we saw Jesus predict in Matthew—in John 13:38—that Peter would give this three-fold denial of Christ. So, the sovereignty of God is pictured here. It’s pictured as well as the story unfolds and we see exactly what Jesus prophesied comes to pass.

Peter denies Christ three times. Here’s the rooster crow and weeps bitterly. Now, this should put—you know, this if you have any inkling of thinking about openness theology, God doesn’t know the future. He’s not sovereign in the affairs of men. This is, I think, one of the stakes you can drive through the heart of that doctrine here. Clearly, Christ knew exactly what would come to pass the three-fold denial by Peter and then the cock crowing the absolute sovereignty of God.

So however much this story distresses us and it should in many points still we find rest and solace in it because it’s telling us something that is dictated by God’s sovereign purposes to the end that we might find joy and comfort today as we meditate upon this text. Even the crucifixion of our savior is said in Acts to be according to the predetermined foreknowledge of God. Godless men put him to death.

They’re responsible, but all is under the sovereign hand of God. This text is a great shouting forth of the absolute sovereignty of God. Notice, of course, the sovereignty of God over the rooster. God speaks through Balaam’s donkey in the Old Testament. He speaks through the brute man Caiaphas who has given up his humanity by rejecting God and his law. And God speaks through the rooster to do something very significant in the life of Peter.

Okay. Second section. Peter then enters the high priest’s domain. Verses 15 and following. Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest. But Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple who was known to the high priest went out, spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door and brought Peter in.

Now here the count is 3 and 3. Three references to the high priest as we move into the story directly now apart from the introduction of how we get to the scene. 3 and 3. And here the matchup between the high priest and Peter is beginning to be driven home by God by this repetition of references. Peter is moving into the domain of the high priest.

Now, a few things that may be confusing here. Who was this man who let Peter in? In all probability, it seems to me that it was John. John never mentions his name in the gospel in terms—we have several references to a disciple who Jesus loved or this or that disciple that are unnamed. Usually the disciples are named but here no again. So this is probably John. Tradition has actually two stories about this. One is that John was actually related to the high priestly family and this is how he had entrance to the high priest courtyard.

Now we know that John was the son of Zebedee a fisherman but still there is fairly strong evidence in the early church fathers that point this way. Another thing that the church fathers, other church fathers talked about was that John’s fishing family was the one that provided the high priest with the salt fish that they would catch. And so that actually excavation has apparently produced a church that supposedly was built on the site of this fish house that Zebedee and Sons fish market had established in Jerusalem.

So, they were up in Galilee fishing, but they had an outlet, so to speak, right in Jerusalem, and they would sell to the high priest family. We don’t know why John had access, but this is apparently what goes on. John had access, he lets Peter in. Again, we had the link with the high priest and there is a reversal that occurs later in John 20:1-7. If this is John, we have the domain of the high priest.

We have John able to come in, but Peter following John in him. Now, in the resurrection described in chapter 20 with the empty tomb, the two disciples, Peter and John, run to the tomb together upon hearing the news that Christ has arisen. John beats Peter. He gets there first, but he does not enter the tomb. He waits for Peter. Peter enters and then John goes in. There’s a reversal of order. Now, we’ve said before that what’s interesting about the tomb scene in John’s particular presentation is that at this slab the woman sees two angels.

So we’ve got a slab, two angels here. It’s an ark of the covenant. It’s the holy place now where Jesus has gone into the holy place died or at least his blood is atoning there and it’s the picture of all that going on. So when it gets to the establishment of the true holy place instead of this false domain of the high priest, Peter enters first. John waits for him. The high priest is the one who would enter into the Holy of Holies and symbolically bring Israel in.

So, in any event, whether you like that or not, that is a point to be made as we consider this progression. And notice again that Peter is drawing closer. The text gives us that he follows Jesus. He stands outside the door. He’s brought in.

Okay. Now, whether or not Peter should be in this particular place is a is a statement of some controversy. Calvin, for instance, says, “You know, the Lord had told him, I go to a place you cannot come.” Now, of course, that speaks ultimately of his death and resurrection. But the question is, God has already told Peter, you’re going to deny me three times. Why is Peter so foolish as to go into this place where Jesus is into the domain into the relationship of the high priest and his gang of thugs? And we’ll see that played out as he warms himself at the fire with them. So, you know, it is good pastorally here to note as we pass through this whether Calvin is right or not.

Calvin makes the pastoral point that we should be careful the physical environment that we go into. You know, a man given to temptation to pornography is not one of the guys we’d want to send on to sweethearts to pick it—or certainly not one who we would want to send into the actual store to try to witness to the store owner or one of his employees. His eyes will be prone to wander. So here as well Calvin draws the pastoral point and I repeat it to you that we must be careful where we go.

A man has to know his limitations, right? Clint Eastwood. So that’s what we need to know. We need to know our limitations and what situations will tempt us beyond what we are probably able to bear.

Okay. Again, a man given to difficulties with sexual sin. You probably don’t want to have HBO as part of your satellite dish program. Don’t go there.

All right. Next section is Peter’s first denial. The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” And he said, I am not.

Well, here it begins. Here we have the beginning of the depiction in this text of how temptation works. The devil is a sly character. He doesn’t begin with a full frontal assault on Peter. Peter has just gained entrance. He’s already kind of beholden to this girl, right? She’s let him in finally. So, he’s just, you know, Peter’s trying to figure out what’s going on, trying to stay close to the Savior, trying to follow him.

And now this girl, an unimportant servant girl, you know, she’s not just a woman, but she’s a servant woman as well. And she doesn’t ask the question saying, “Are you one of his disciples?” She asks it in the negative. “You’re not one of those disciples, are you?” You see, it’s so easy for Peter to fall at this first temptation. An important person in the dark of night, maybe a passing question as he goes by.

No, no, I’m not. He can justify it. I want to be close to the behavior. You see children, this is the way sin begins. It does not begin with some huge problem usually that’s going to tempt you to some horrible sin. No, it’s a series of small actions entered into. You know, one little lie leads to another. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Peter attempted to deceive the servant girl.

And what it will lead to, of course, we know. We know he’s going to deny him three times and we know at the end with that the third denial is going to be with swearings and cursings taking an oath that he doesn’t know this man Jesus Christ full out apostasy is what Peter will end up at but it doesn’t start there—you this last week depending on who or you were with you might have a very analogous situation where you’re not overt about your testimony to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I suppose Mr. and Mrs. Wickwire and the Christians there this is a temptation to paper over somehow our truth that we’re Christians. So, praise God for the work God is doing in Turkey through them. But I’m just trying to get you to see it’s very difficult at times to avoid these small temptations that the devil throws our way.

John Owen says, “Put all your effort at the first temptation.” Muster everything you have for the small temptation that comes because if you begin to give in at the first temptation over not a big deal, well, I can control myself with HBO. Well, this movie is ours, but I’m working on it. This will help. No. Get throw all your strength at that first temptation to resist it.

Because this temptation of Peter is a picture to us of the way temptation works in the lives of men. Here was the strong disciple who had pledged himself to follow Christ and not deny him. Here was the one who had been strength, confident enough, and courageous enough in the very garden just shortly before this to pull out a sword and begin to strike at the enemies of Christ in his kingdom. Here’s a man who is not some man given to indomitable weakness. This is a man given to strength, perseverance, and character. And yet, it is this very man who ends up denying the Savior with complete apostasy by the end with curses and affirmations. He denies the Savior.

Now, how foolish can we be if we think when the small temptations come, it’s okay to give away a little a little bit. You know, it’s interesting legend has it that the rest of Peter’s life when he’d walk around in various neighborhoods or cities, people saw him coming, they’d make the cockcrow sound, you know, remind him over and over again of his sin. I suppose at this point, unlike walking on the water, I suppose Peter knows this is going to be written up, but he doesn’t think this is going to be written up. Nobody’s going to notice this off-hand comment to a servant girl who had just shown him a nicety by letting him into the courtyard of the high priest.

What’s the big deal? I can reinterpret the question, you know. Well, this man’s disciple, I’m not a very good disciple, so no, I’m not. Who knows what he was thinking? But the point is, he’s started to slide. And what God has done is he’s preserved this first denial of Christ by Peter for all history. Peter had no idea that would happen. What event in this last week in your life did you hope no one else will know about?

What small step of denial of Christ’s lordship in your life? What temptation did you face from your co-workers for instance, from your neighbors, from your relatives that saw you begin to equivocate in terms of your being a follower and a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ? You see, God says what’s whispered in the little places, in the in the alleyways and in the back rooms will be shouted from the housetops.

God sees. God knows all of these things. And he warns you today that if you had events like that this past week, steal yourselves this week to have the courage of the Lord Jesus Christ instead of the eventual cowardice of Peter.

Jesus will face great temptations in his dialogue first with the high priest and then with the Roman governor Pilate. He’ll be assaulted, cursed, whipped, face beaten, crown of thorns put on him, and sent to the cross. But through all of those temptations, the Savior stands firm and denies nothing. But through this little tiny temptation, the servant girl might not like him. Who knows what might happen? He may not be able to stay in the courtyard. Nothing big is being threatened to Peter. Calvin makes the point that this is where our courage goes about Christ. We quake at the sound of the wind. Whoa. What’s behind me. Well, that’s Peter here.

You see, he quakes apparently with a lack of courage with the small voice of a servant woman asking him a question that should have been quite easy to answer. That’s probably why he went was to be able to witness to Christ in some way. And yet, here in the darkness, in the temptation of the small question by an unknown servant girl that no one else will hear, Peter begins his apostasy by denying the Savior.

May the Lord God grant us grace to throw all of our efforts at the first temptations that will come to us this week to deny practically our discipleship and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. Surely each of us can see in this narrative ourselves. We can see the contrast between Peter and the Lord Jesus Christ between us and Christ’s testimony to the truth of things all through his temptations and our failure all too often.

In terms of that, C.S. Lewis said this. He said, “Like a good chess player, Satan is always trying to maneuver you into a position where you can save your castle only by losing your bishop.” That’s what’ll happen to Peter. He’ll on top of this lie, he’ll begin to construct more lies, more untruths to be in harmony with his first failure of temptation. May God grant us the grace to throw all of our efforts into the first temptations that come to us this week.

Then the fourth section is Peter and those men warming themselves at the fire. 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.

Well, here we have the Lord Jesus being—we know from what will happen later in the interrogation with the high priest being having no one having concern for his comfort and in fact he gets slapped around for telling the truth. So these men at the fire, their concern is not the Lord Jesus Christ. These are wicked men. These are part of the high priest, this broken down religious order, his thugs, his assistants, those people warming themselves with no concern for the Lord Jesus Christ. And this jumps out at us as we begin to read the text. And then amazement strikes us that Peter also is there standing and warming himself.

And I think that the commentators including Calvin that say that this is a great warning against the company we keep are absolutely on target. This text of warming themselves is put in here twice right before and after the interrogation of Christ. Now one reason for that is to help us to see the structure of the text. God has written this in such a way as to draw our center attention to Jesus and the high priest and at the outer ends Peter and his relationship to the high priest. So there’s a literary device being used here no doubt but still there’s a two-fold repetition of this and there’s a repetition right in the context of this first section.

They’re standing and warming. Peter is standing and warming. So the parallelism that exists here shows Peter entering into the company or fellowship of the high priest men. He is having his soul gathered with the ungodly. You see, you know, at camp, it was disappointing. I never I don’t think I was ever at a campfire this past family camp, but you know, you come around a campfire and there’s a fellowship sort of exists there you know you all stand around a fire brings us together ultimately I suppose here in the context of the high priest we can think of the altar fire that represents God and that’s what binds us together into community but any fire will do for bringing men together Peter is brought together here into the context of fellowship and comforting creaturly comforts with ungodly men and this is a warning to us one more time of that basic wisdom of Proverbs that watch out for bad company.

Bad company corrupts good morals. It’s we’re always going to imitate the people we’re around. And here Peter’s second denial is prefaced by his entering into this community that are gathered around this fire. The Lord God would have us pastorally understand the need to be very careful with our acquaintances, very careful with our friendships. I know that some of you work with ungodly men and there’s a sense in which you’re gathered around the fire with them all week long. But God says, “Be very careful in those circumstances. Do not enter into the sort of friendships and camaraderie that might tempt you then to deny Christ or some aspect of it instead of bringing the truth of Christ to bear to bite your tongue lest you offend one of these ungodly men.” This is what Peter is falling into in his great temptation. Peter’s apostasy begins with a simple statement to a servant girl.

It continues to mount by his fellowship by is allowing himself to be drawn into company with men who have no care for Christ. Now we’ve got Peter, the disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, taking care of his creaturely comforts, not attending to Jesus Christ. Why didn’t he try to go there? Why didn’t he try to give testimony against the false testimony of men that were gathered? Why didn’t he seek entrance as a witness in the context of this trial?

Why didn’t he at least get close enough to pray for Christ, to look at him, and to hold him up in prayer. He did none of these things. Peter is not pictured in a good way in this text. He is he who bands together with the ungodly in seeking comfortly creaturly comforts.

Then we have the center of the narrative, the high priest’s questioning of Christ. The high priest then questioned Jesus about the 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 right hand, saying, “Is this 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, that last sentence could be interpreted. Annas had already sent him bound to the high priest. There’s a deliberate ambiguity here in terms of who’s doing this questioning, but this is the end of the questioning by the high priest in our narrative. In the other synoptic gospels, there’s much more detail given of Christ’s trial before the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas. Not so here. Here it’s dealt with in a very brief form. And what we’ll get a lengthy interrogation of Christ is from Pilate. Either way, we have church and state represented to us in the context of these two trials.

Now, clearly what Jesus is doing here is he is trying to restore proper judicial process that should have been in place based on the law of God and the laws that have been developed by the religious order for trials. Jesus seeks truth. These men have no interest in truth. This comes out very pointedly next week when we deal with Jesus before Pilate where Pilate says, “What is truth?” He doesn’t mean to say I can’t figure it out. He’s saying it has no relevance to this situation. Then what we’re told here through the actions of the high priest and his officer is that there is no relevance of truth in the context of the existing religious order.

The breakdown has not just been procedural. The breakdown has also been in terms of a quest or nonquest for truth and for justice. Jesus says, “Well, hey, I’m not supposed to be forced to testify against myself and you should be able to call witnesses. Right? That’s how these trials are supposed to work. You’re supposed to bring a witness who testifies what I’ve done wrong. And for simply asserting this truth, he gets then slapped.

Punishment begins to be administered to him for simply asking or saying what should be the proper trial proceeding. After all, now, in a way, you can sort of see where Annas and Caiaphas are coming from. This is the guy that overturned those—their source of income—both at the beginning and end of his ministry. And they recognize what we don’t—that Jesus is confronting their very system of administering these sorts of trials.

He is charging them in essence with violating the law of God. They recognize this. Instead of repenting, when men don’t want to repent of sins, they strike out at the thing that is bringing them conviction. And so this man strikes out at the Lord Jesus Christ. These are thugs and cowards. And again, the only coward—only one who is not a coward in the room is the Lord Jesus Christ. He knows what’s coming.

He knows these men have no interest in truth. He answers them with wisdom and truth courageously knowing indeed that he’ll be struck and much more as he goes to the cross. Jesus at the very middle of this narrative is the pearl of great price. He’s the jewel of the one who bears testimony to the truth in spite of very real dangers and threats coming against him which will end with him being pierced through with nails and put on the cross.

Clearly, there is a contrast then to Peter who really suffers no reasonable fear and yet becomes a coward and bears no testimony at all. Jesus gives up nothing. Peter gives up everything. His profession of the Lord Jesus Christ and finally with curses and vows and swearing to that truth or untruth that is. So the Lord Jesus is pictured as the great picture here of the one who is courageous—that can—he and he alone can make us courageous and make us better than Peter was in the context of the narrative. And clearly the religious order is broken down judicially in terms of the procession of the high priest and also morally—there’s no interest in the truth from these particular men.

Now one other passing comment here: this text tells us that when Jesus had instructed us when you’re struck turn the other cheek this has to be understood in a little broader fashion because he doesn’t do it, does he? Doesn’t just turn his cheek he issues a statement of rebuff and correction to the man who struck who hit him. He says well and he brings it right back to the same point—the law of God if you have something to charge me with charge me and prove it to be true but if not quit hitting me. He brings to bear the witness of God’s word. Now he may get hit again but when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, clearly he’s saying, “Don’t take your own vengeance. Don’t have an improper sinful reaction to that.” But he’s not mandating that when somebody hits you, you got to say, “Oh, okay. Hit me here, too.” It’s not what Jesus is saying. He does defend himself in terms of this court of law with the proper means of defending himself, the calling of the whole group to the truth, which they of course continue to reject.

Now, we come back to Peter warming himself. Verse 25: “Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself.” So again, this helps develop this structure. And you see, it’s a narrative that is stitched together. It’s like in a movie, you know, where you got an action going on here and an action going on there. And sometimes they’ll actually have two screens to show you the action going on. You know, one of the more famous ones, I suppose, is in The Godfather when Michael Corleone is having his godfather baptized and at the same time he’s exercising his wrath and all his enemies.

So there’s cuts back and forth, baptism being performed in Latin in references to the Trinity, etc. Over here, Corleone thugs going out and murdering people even while he’s taking vows for the Godfather. Quite a significant very well done scene. Well, that’s what’s going on here. Peter is here. Jesus is here. We go back to Peter. So, there’s a cutting back and forth that wants us to see these texts, these two narratives of Peter and the courtyard and Jesus for the high priest intertwined and that’s why many commentators have taken the primary purpose as being a comparison and contrast between Peter and Christ.

Then the next section C prime: Peter denies Jesus again. So they said to him, “You also are not one of the disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” Now notice here this progression of temptation. It’s the same thing the servant girl said. She puts it in the way it’s easy for him to say no—”You’re not one of his disciples, are you?” Of course not. I’m not. But now it’s they—now it’s not just the servant girl. Now it’s the servant girl maybe and some other people. It’s the men that he’s warming himself with. So now it’s tougher. He said this one little lie here. She’s with him. Now if he says, “Well, yeah, actually I am.” He’s shown to be a hypocrite. So he’s got motivation now more than just fear. His own fear of being seen as a hypocrite amongst people is motivating him to continue this slide that he enters into.

He’s told the first little lie. He’s put himself in fellowship with evil men. These evil men ask him a question that’s easy again to say no—I’m not. And so Peter’s second denial. And again it matches up with this first one in the way the question is asked.

And then in the next to last section here: Peter denies Jesus again. Verses 26 and following. “One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, ‘Did I not see you in the garden with him?’”

Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.

So now it’s not put in the easy way to answer. Now the guy’s saying, “Wow, yeah, I think you’re one of them.” We’re told in the other text, other narratives that his Galilean accent was part of what tipped him off. So now he’s actually people are now—the temptation is worse. It builds up here and now he has to actually deny Christ. And the assumption is as you’ve read the Gospel of John that you’ve read the synoptic accounts, right?

There is this progression of the gospels. So we already know what’s going to happen. And John doesn’t give us the weeping of Peter bitterly. It doesn’t fill in all the rest of the details. But what the details tell us from the synoptics is important to bring into this. What it tells us is that when Peter denies him the third time, it’s with cursings and swearings and oaths. So there’s an intensity to his apostasy.

Secondly, it tells us that when the rooster crows, several things happen. Peter remembers the word of Christ. So somehow in the difficulty of the evening and the really difficult time that Peter was going through this denial of Christ was not in his thought. Christ had predicted it now. But when the rooster crows, the word of the Lord Jesus Christ comes back to Peter. Not only the word, but we’re told in Luke that Peter is in a position to where he can actually see inside the window of this interrogation.

And Peter Jesus looks out the window and his eyes fix upon Peter. The Savior’s word, the Savior’s look—he cast his eye upon Peter. Peter sees this and Peter then weeps bitterly, grievously. Peter repents. We know that from the rest of the gospel stories. Peter repents.

Notice again that there is this progression to temptation that we should be aware of. Notice as well that the repentance that becomes Peter’s is activated by a remembering of the word of the savior. And that remembering of the word of the savior is actually put in the context of physical eye contact with the savior himself. What does this tell us? As much as the warming by the fire is a great warning against ungodly fellowship, this is a reminder to godly fellowship. It’s not just the word remembered that brings Peter to repentance. It’s the presence of Christ. It’s the presence of other Christians who bring to bear the word of Jesus Christ.

If our own consciences have not by the time of our apostasies, our sins, our practical denials—you see, what affects repentance is the sovereign word of Christ that comes to us, usually mediated in the context of the presence of some other image bearer of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, the other thing this text does—placed in this particular way in these sort of structures, some things are rather obvious and they point us to things that are not necessarily obvious. Yet here the final denial of Peter seems to be linked up with in the terms of how the text develops with his entrance into the domain of the high priest. This doesn’t seem right to us somehow. And yet if we meditate on the way this text is stitched together, that is precisely the point. What’s going on is the stitching together of this text—certainly draws comparisons and contrast between Peter and Jesus.

But more importantly, Peter is put in the context of the high priest and his domain. His denial is directly linked to his being in the courtyard of the high priest. And so the text wants to drive that home to us in in a very strong way. And this placement of the third denial in juxtaposition to the entrance into the courtyard of the high priest does that as does as well of course the eightfold repetition of the term high priest and the term Peter.

Interestingly, as well in the D prime section, it’s “Simon Peter was standing and warming himself.” And this is directly after the reference to Caiaphas, the high priest. And then the only other place Simon Peter is used is up in the B section. “Simon Peter followed Jesus”—again directly after a reference to Caiaphas, the high priest.

Peter is used times but twice Simon Peter is used as the name of Peter and that is in both times in direct correlation—in direct proximity to the naming of Caiaphas the present high priest. So the text I think wants us to understand the relationship of Peter to the high priest.

Then we have the final section the A prime section where Jesus is taken to Pilate. “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.”

Well, here we have the hypocrisy of the Jews who are supposed to be a witness to the Gentiles. But no, they hold themselves off from the Gentiles, imposing non-biblical restrictions on their relationship with the Gentiles. And of course, who will do this very thing?

In the book of Galatians, we’re told that Paul said he had to confront Peter to his face because Peter was breaking table fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter pulled back from becoming defiled so to speak at least in what people might think of him because of contact with the Gentiles. So I think that the way the text is written—again we have this apostasy of Peter sharp contrast to the savior—he is not pictured in a good light and we also have an indication of the future sin of Peter as well being pictured in connection with the sin of the high priest and the sin of the Jews at the time.

Now, I have drawn this story out alluding to references between Peter and the high priest. I think that what this story tells us, what all of John’s gospel has told us is that Jesus is reconstituting Israel. Jesus takes 12 disciples. There were 12 tribes of Israel. We’re repeated references to the uncleanness of the Jews. They’re being in captivity. Jesus goes around reconstituting true Israel, true Judaism as those that follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

And in the terms of the structure of the religious order, Peter, it seems to me, is being put in relationship to the high priest. Peter is becoming the head of the church. He’s becoming Jesus’s assistant. When Jesus leaves, Peter picks up headship over the church. And of course, we know that this is true from what will happen in John chapter 21, where Peter is given charge over the church. We know that this is true that Peter later hands it off to James for the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

But for a period of time here, Peter is the titular head of the church. What Jesus is doing can be seen in terms of officer evaluation and training. The sovereign Lord has decided that Peter will be the man whose confession and whose person will form the guiding oversight and authority for the church. Peter is being pictured to us as the new high priest as the newly constituted Israel.

Those who are the true followers of Jesus Christ. That’s I think why John doesn’t enter the holy place of the tomb before Peter. He’s the high priest. He gets to go in. Now if we were to pick a CEO or senior pastor, this isn’t the way we would do it. We would not have an evaluation that revealed the man’s horrible sinfulness and utter apostasy. And even if we did, we wouldn’t record it for all to see. We wouldn’t pick the man who three times denied his savior, warming himself with evil men, who would then later, even after his repentance here, would again sin in the same way in the context of his breaking table fellowship with the Gentiles.

What does it tell us? Well, I think what it tells us is that true leaders, families, the church, civil state, business—the qualification for being a leader in the context of Christ’s domain is a deep awareness of our own sin and the graciousness of the Lord Jesus Christ in forgiving us our sins. This is absolutely critical to leadership. I think that’s what the text is showing us. It shows us that he was as bad as the high priest.

The high priest had no interest in truth. The high priest struck out at Jesus with his tongue and Peter does the same thing in the courtyard with affirmations and vows and curses saying, “I don’t know this man.” It’s not contrast. It’s all comparison until of course the end when the rooster crows when the proclamation of God sounds forth from a little fowl piece of animal, a fowl, a little bird proclaims forth the truth of Jesus Christ so to speak that his prediction was true and right that it was he is the savior of the world so to speak and it’s that rooster crow that brings Peter to an awareness or at least begins to—as the word of Christ is revealed to him and as Christ looks at him the crow of the rooster is a proclamation and it’s the gospel proclamation I think it’s the saying that yeah we have sinned we have denied our savior this past week this past month this past year we have sinned against the Lord Jesus Christ and in much the same way as Peter in small things that we thought were not important and yet we’re told here they’re tremendously important and God knows every one of them we have sinned in the self same way as Peter being afraid to witness to the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ that’s part of the crowing of the gospel as a recognition of our sins because without that we’ll become Annas we’ll become Caiaphas we may hold religious office we may hold business office.

We may hold state office. But if we do so proudly, not humbly, not with an awareness of our sinfulness and our horrible, wicked sinfulness displayed all too often in our lives—if we’re not humbled by those actions, we will be proud manipulators who want nothing to do with the truth and who oppress people and who don’t serve the people that they’re placed in the context of leadership over.

God says that his high priest was one who understood the depth of his depravity because in understanding the depth of his depravity he also sees the depth of God’s love for him and the greatness of Christ’s forgiveness of him. That’s the other side of that rooster crow—you’re free Jesus knew it. Weep bitterly yes but understand that you’re forgiven by the Lord Jesus Christ when he told you would deny him three times he immediately told you in John 13 to be of good cheer because the end result of an awareness of our sin is the awareness of the forgiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And that makes us powerful men for the Lord Jesus. Now, we’ve been hard on Peter, but recognize there’s some good things in this text that also are required of leaders. This is the central characteristic: humility before God, an awareness of his forgiveness, and an ability and a desire to dispense forgiveness and grace to those who repent, being brought to repentance by the church of Christ as well.

That’s the key quality. There are a few others here, of course, because Peter denies Christ because of his love for Christ. He denies Christ because of his courage. All the other disciples had fled. He’s the only one with enough courage and love for Christ to actually follow him. Now, maybe Calvin’s right and he followed him into a place he shouldn’t have gone. Maybe he was, you know, naive in that way of his own shortcomings.

He wouldn’t be from now on. He’d be more aware of his tendencies to temptation. But nonetheless, understand that Peter is the only one of the 12 who has the courage to follow Christ and the love for him that at least moves him in that direction. You see, those are also requirements of leaders in the family, in the church, in the state, and in business. A love for the Lord Jesus Christ that gives us courage.

It may lead us into difficult areas and trials and temptations, but nonetheless, it is a qualification for leadership. I believe this text certainly contrasts Peter and Jesus, but it also compares Peter to the wicked high priest Annas and Caiaphas. And when it does so, it reminds us of the central tenant of who we are before Christ. As we come forward to offer ourselves in tribute to the great King of Kings, may we do so understanding that as our song says, we are truly a debtor to mercy alone.

And when we understand those things, then we’ll rule in our various spheres under our various places where God has placed us with humility, graciousness, and a renewed commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. And we’ll lead other people into a knowledge of him the way that Peter led the church for the next decade or two.

Let’s pray. Father, we do thank you for bringing us together. We thank you for that rooster crowing.

We thank for the proclamation of the gospel, an awareness of the depth of our sin, and yet an awareness of your great love and mercy given to us and an equipping of us to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. May we be empowered, Father, first by a recognition of our sin, but secondly by a recognition of your great forgiveness and love and equipping. And may we rule in the spheres of influence that you have prepared for us this week graciously with humility before you, but true strength and courage as well.

In Christ’s name we ask it. Amen.