Episode121-A Contrast of "Trials" - John 18:25-27
John 18:25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” 26 One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” 27 Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.
I had initially intended to cover a more extensive section of scripture in this episode. However, as I reflected upon this brief account of the last two of Peter’s three denials that he was a disciple of Jesus, I thought there was plenty here for it to stand on its own. Recall that at their dinner, Peter had asserted that he would “lay down his life” for Jesus. But, Jesus responded that Peter would deny Jesus “three times . . .before the rooster crowed.” (John 13:37-38).
Peter had taken out a knife/sword in the garden and assaulted a member of the crowd that came to arrest Jesus. He had shown a measure of boldness at that moment. However, John had already revealed that Peter quickly denied that he was a disciple of Jesus when he was questioned upon entering the courtyard. (John 18:17)
At that point, our author does not continue with the account of the others who question Peter concerning his relationship with Jesus. Instead, he turns the attention to Annas’ interrogation of Jesus. Why does John do this? For one reason, it is good storytelling to help the reader understand the things that are happening in two places at the same time. When Peter enters the grounds, he is questioned and he then approaches the fire to keep warm while trying to find out what is going to happen to Jesus. Meanwhile, Jesus was nearby being questioned by Annas. In these concurring events, I think John wants us to see something else.
Back in John 5:30-46, Jesus had argued that his teaching and the miracles he was performing were from God. He wasn’t some lone “prophet” bringing new or novel teaching. He appealed to the Law, which spoke of the requirement of “two or three witnesses” in order to substantiate the facts of a matter. He offered the “witnesses” that verified the source of his teaching and miracles.
Deut. 19:15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.”
Now, notice what is happening in this “trial” of Jesus before Annas. Are there any witnesses? No. Annas just questions Jesus about his teachings and his disciples. So, Jesus responded that there are plenty of witnesses to what he taught because he taught openly and often even at the temple itself. Jesus indirectly told Annas (the high priest) that Annas was violating the Jewish Law by not having witnesses to any accusations against Jesus. Annas was attempting to get Jesus to incriminate himself, and Jesus was not falling for that. He did nothing wrong. That’s when (and probably why) Annas decided to send Jesus to Caiaphas.
Before John followed Jesus to Caiaphas, he returned to the scene of Peter and others around the fire. Peter had already denied Jesus once. In verse 25,“others” are also thinking that Peter is one of Jesus’ disciples and they question him. For the second time. Peter denied that he was a disciple of Jesus. Finally, one person from the arresting party, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, suggested that he saw Peter in the garden with Jesus. Peter denied a third time that he was with Jesus. The accusation that Peter was a disciple of Jesus not only intensified, but got more specific. Most importantly, John is showing us that the requirement of “two or three witnesses” has been fulfilled in this informal “trial” of Peter. The evidence reveals that he is “guilty” of being a disciple of Jesus and, furthermore, is guilty of denying Jesus. In doing so, Peter fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed.
John added that “immediately” after his third denial, the rooster crowed. (v. 27) Jesus’ prophecy to Peter was exact.
It appears to me that John is juxtaposing the innocence of Jesus with the guilt of Peter. Jesus’ faithfulness to the Law and his mission as well as the integrity of his word is evident through the fact that there are no witnesses to accuse him. Peter’s tragic unfaithfulness, as one of Jesus’s closest friends and breach of integrity to his word, stands in stark contrast. It makes me wonder how often my faithfulness to the Lord and his mission have been compromised.
As we will soon see, Peter’s failures do not negate God’s mercy to him and Gods’ plan to use him for His mission. This is an important lesson for us all to learn. The Lord knows our frailties and he knows when we might even deny him through our words and actions. He is willing to lead us back to where we need to be and to strengthen us for what He has in store for us. His mercy and grace are abundant.