Category Archives: Expositions
Marvelling at Christ
“Then Pilate said to him, ‘Don’t you hear all of the things of which they are accusing you?’ Yet, he gave no answer to him, not even to one word, to the point that the Governor was quite amazed.”
(Matthew 27:13-14)
“And Pilate again asked him, saying, ‘Will you not answer? Look how many charges are against you!’ But Jesus gave no further reply to the point that Pilate was amazed.”
(Mark 15:4-5)
Here we see at least some depth to Pilate’s character. He knows that he has been cornered by the Jewish authorities, but at the same time he has no intention of being their puppet. He wants some sort of defense from Jesus so that he has something with which to work. We will see this move by Pilate several times in this trial and it should not be confused with care for Jesus, but simply seen as a way for Pilate to get this man’s blood off of his conscience and to keep the Jewish officials from running roughshod over him.
Yet, Pilate is amazed at Jesus’ silence. It is interesting to ponder the source of Pilate’s amazement. Often it is understood as Pilate just being astonished or confused that here is a man being accused of something that will possibly put him to death and he won’t answer the charges. Yet, the amazement can be understood in other ways as well. The term qauma/zw (thaumazo) is broad enough that it could refer to Pilate’s own frustration with the situation itself — essentially a sense of amazement that he has been dragged into this mess. At the same time, qauma/zw (thaumazo) is most commonly used to describe people’s reactions in the midst of God’s divine work, so the amazement could also be interpreted as a shudder at whose presence he happens to be in, though this is less likely given Pilate’s treatment of Jesus before him.
Yet, it raises the question for us as to how we respond to God himself. Are we amazed (in the divine sense) at the work of Jesus in our own midst? Do we enter into prayer and worship with reverence and when we do enter into prayer and worship, do we actually expect to find God there? Do we pray in confidence that we are speaking to a God who hears our prayers or do we just drop words into space out of habit? Loved ones, my prayer for you is that this idea of qauma/zw (thaumazo) would capture your spirit and your life as you approach God — not just in the big things, but also in the mundane things of life.
I stand amazed in the presence
Of Jesus the Nazarene,
And wonder how He could love me,
A sinner, condemned, unclean.
O how marvelous! O how wonderful!
And my song shall ever be:
O how marvelous! O how wonderful!
Is my Savior’s love for me!
— Charles Gabriel
Assumptions and Accusations
“But when the charges were made against him by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer.”
(Matthew 27:12)
“And the chief priests brought many charges against him.”
(Mark 15:3)
We have already seen Jesus’ using silence when he is confronted with these false charges. Note that the word here is kathgore/w (kategoreo), which is normally used in a legal context. These charges being lifted against Jesus are not meant as broad accusations, but they are given in a legal context — in this case, to try and have Jesus charged with a capitol offense. Much of Jesus’ silence, then should be seen as an appeal to Jewish law that no one may be put to death on the evidence of a single witness, but that two or three credible witnesses must be present to corroborate the accusations (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:5). And we have already seen that these false witnesses cannot seem to get their stories right. Jesus need not dignify their charges with a reply because there is no legal charge being brought.
As we see this, though, may we remember to look carefully at how we raise objections to those in our midst. How often, on the basis of one “gossipy” witness, we develop an opinion of someone else’s character — an impression that is often very difficult to undo. How often, on the basis of speculation, we jump to conclusions about who did this or that. How often, on the basis of a label, whether political, denominational, or otherwise, we make wrong assumptions about others. How often we are just as guilty of false accusations as these chief priests and officials are — and how often, when those first impressions are proven wrong, we fail to humble ourselves and apologize. May we seek to make amends with those who have remained silent at our false accusations.
Our God is an Awesome God
“But they were persistent, saying, ‘He disturbs the people, teaching through the whole of Judea — starting in Galilee but even here.’ When Pilate heard this, he asked if the man was Galilean.”
(Luke 23:5-6)
Those Galileans were always stirring up trouble for the Roman leaders. This is something that the Priests knew and likely threw in to poison the well some against Jesus. At the same time, this created a bit of a loophole for Pilate to extract himself from the false trial. Galilee was not under his direct authority, but was ruled by Herod Antipas, the local king who ruled over Galilee and Peraea. Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great (the Herod who sought to kill the baby Jesus) and a Samaritan woman named Malthace. Needless to say that there was no love lost toward this king of Galilee, especially because he was a Roman collaborator, and the shift of authority, Pilate likely thought, would be a nice poke back at these pesky Jewish priests. And, since it was Passover, it so happened that Herod was in Jerusalem … how very convenient.
What I find interesting as I look over these events is how many people were trying to manipulate the outcome. The Jews wanted Jesus to be executed by the Romans. The Romans did not care either way about the man, Jesus, but did not want to become Jewish puppets, and now Herod will be brought into the picture. Yet, in the midst of all of these schemes of men, God is still sovereignly governing these events to a conclusion that he had so ordained from before the foundation of the earth.
We often sing in church that our God is an Awesome God, but I wonder whether we really live it out. We see from history how God has orchestrated even the smallest events and details to bring about his glory and then we worry about things we cannot control in our own lives. Jesus spoke a great deal about our not worrying, but we do anyway. The pagans, whose gods cannot answer them or affect events, have a right to worry. We do not. Trust God and when things seem to fall apart, instead of worrying or wondering “where God went…” ask yourself the question, “what is a sovereign God teaching me in the midst of this crisis?”
Our God is an awesome God
He reigns from heaven above
With wisdom, power, and love
Our God is an awesome God.
-Rich Mullins
No Basis for a Charge…
“And Pilate said to the chief priests and to the crowds, ‘I find no basis for a charge in this man.’”
(Luke 23:4)
As I read this, I can almost envision Pilate in his frustration kind of thinking to himself, “What now? Here I am, woken up early, trying to get some breakfast, and I have to deal with this. It’s bad enough having Jerusalem so swollen with people due to their Passover celebration, but now I have to deal with this? Can’t these people give me even a little peace?” Perhaps I am reading a bit too much into Pilate’s thought here, but as a pastor, I know that I have had this kind of thought at times… “You guys are angry at each other over what? Did you listen to any of my sermon last week on Philippians 2?” When grown adults who know what the Word of God teaches on matters of dispute can’t seem to act upon the Scripture’s teaching and choose to behave more like Kindergarteners…well, you get the picture.
This is a little different as Pilate is a pagan and much more interested in pragmatic solutions that will preserve the peace in this very turbulent region of the world. Though the Jews were not a mighty military force, their region of the world was historically a difficult one to hold for long periods of time and the Jewish people were notorious for overthrowing larger and more highly trained armies through the use of guerrilla tactics. Pilate had no intention of having such happen on his watch. Even so, he begins at least, with integrity.
Some of our Bibles will render the term ai¡tioß (aitios) as “guilt.” Yet, the term is better translated as “basis for a charge.” Pilate has not examined the man, Jesus, as of yet, so he could not know anything of actual guilt. What he is doing, based on the ramblings of the priests and the shouts of the crowds, is making a kind of preliminary ruling — “you don’t have a basis for a capital case against him” — is essentially what Pilate is saying here. More will develop as the dialogue continues, but for now, Pilate is still insisting that this is a local case to be decided according to local laws. The bottom line is that this is an answer that the Priests could not accept because they wanted to put Jesus to death. If last night was a height of wickedness; this day would see new peaks by its end.
Were you there when they falsely tried my Lord?
Were you there when they falsely tried my Lord?
Oh, Oh, Oh, Sometimes it makes me want to Tremble
Tremble, Tremble…
Were you there when they falsely tried my Lord?
God’s Sovereignty; The Hands of Wicked Men
“Pilate said to them: ‘You take him and, according to your own laws, judge him.’ But the Jews said, ‘We are not permitted to execute anyone.’ This was to fulfill the word of Jesus which he had spoken indicating by what kind of death he was to be executed.’”
(John 18:31-32)
Recognizing that this was not a political matter, Pilate returns the verdict that the Jews should handle this matter on their own. Yet, under Roman rule, local courts were not permitted to practice capital punishment apart from the charge of blaspheming the temple. Execution (apart from this one exception) was something that the Romans kept to themselves. These Jewish leaders, thus desiring to put Jesus to death, recognized that they needed to have Pilate’s blessings and, as mentioned already, they desired to have someone to blame were the people to be upset at this execution. It is sad how often politics shows up in the realm of the church.
This is significant, though, John points out, not just because of the ones who will put Jesus to death, but in terms of the way in which Jesus would die. Typically, Mosaic law demands death by stoning (John 10:31-33); the Romans practiced crucifixion. Jesus had predicted his death by the hand of Gentiles (Matthew 20:19; Luke 18:32) but also that he would be lifted up like Moses did the bronze serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14; 12:32-33). In fact, the Apostle Paul goes as far as to connect Jesus’ execution with Deuteronomy 21:23 which speaks of one who is hung from a tree being cursed by God (Galatians 3:13) — a sign that Jesus bore the curse for us in his death (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Predictions of his own death may seem rather minor to us as we have heard and read these words over and over many times. But Jesus’ predictions of his death are just one more sign that he was actively in control over all aspects of his life and even of his coming death. There were no accidents nor were there any surprises — this is God’s economy, not man’s. As Isaiah wrote, ‘Yahweh delighted to crush him” (Isaiah 53:10). It is God’s design that is ultimately being worked out here, though by the hands of wicked and lawless men (Acts 2:23).
King of the Jews
“And Jesus was placed before the Governor and the Governor inquired of him, saying, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ But Jesus said, ‘You say so.’”
(Matthew 27:11)
“And Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ But he answered him saying, ‘You say so.’”
(Mark 15:2)
“And Pilate questioned him saying, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ But he answered him saying, ‘You say so.’”
(Luke 23:3)
As the second of the trials begins, the line of questioning shifts somewhat. The Jews were pressing Jesus repeatedly as to whether he was the Christ and the Son of God. Now that the Judge is no longer a spiritual authority but a political one, he begins asking about Jesus’ political office. Now, it should be said that the Messianic office was political in nature — a kingly office — but the Messianic office is also prophetic and priestly, comprising the three spheres of leadership found in Old Testament Israel. Pilate is a Roman Prefect, this idea of Messianic office does not concern him except if it were to encroach on the political realm that he represents — that is of the Roman Empire. And thus, the nature of Pilate’s question.
But just as Jesus responded to the questions about him being the Son of God (Luke 22:70), he responds to Pilate as well, placing the ball back in Pilate’s court. Though some might see this as nothing more than a fancy debating technique, the sheer fact that Pilate is questioning Jesus implies that people think he may genuinely be the “King” of the Jews.
So, what is a king? A king is a ruler, he instructs and gives commands, and he is a protector of his people as well as an avenger with respect to his enemies. A little later, Jesus will speak of the nature of his kingdom — being a heavenly one and not an earthly one — but, from Pilate’s perspective, this ought to give him pause. Yet, what is more important is the language of the Jews. Here there is a bit of confusion. For Pilate, the Jews were ethnic Jewish people who lived within the various territories of the Roman empire (not just the realms of Judea and Galilee) and who practiced their faith in the synagogues and in the temple. Yet, Scripture tells us a different story. Paul writes that it is not the children descended by flesh that are truly Israel, but those descended through the promise — by faith (Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:29).
The citizenship of a believer is not on earth (Philippians 3:20), but citizens in heaven — where Christ rules as King and Lord. In this line, the analogy is sometimes made that our churches are outposts or even embassies of heaven in enemy territory — places of refuge from the wickedness of the world and places that represent another kingdom of which we are a part (just one reason the State has no right to make rules concerning the church). Does that mean that Christ has no rights to rule in this world? Not at all, as creator, he is Lord of all his creation, yet fallen creation has entered into rebellion against their rightful Lord and has followed the “prince of the power of the air” — Satan himself. One day, our Lord has promised to return to wipe away his enemies utterly, but not until he brings to himself all of his elect throughout the ages. Once all the elect are gathered into the church and the last martyr dies for their faith, then He will come again and remake heaven and earth free from sin and once again the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth will be one under the single head of Jesus Christ the Lord.
Twisting the Nation
“Then they began to bring charges against him, saying: ‘We have discovered this one twisting our nation and forbidding us to give taxes to Caesar as well as telling us he is himself a Christ — a king.’”
(Luke 23:2)
So why is it that when people want to accuse someone of something or bully another in terms of getting their way, that it is always the money that is threatened. Do people really think that leadership is that shallow? I had a woman come to me once and threaten to stop tithing to the church because she was angry that our churches Session had decided to support a given ministerial need in the community. My response, for better or worse, was to say, “shame on you — shame on you, not because you would give or not give, that is between you and God, but shame on you to think you can use your dollars to manipulate the spiritual leadership of this church.” Perhaps that wasn’t the most gentle way to speak at the given time, but I was convicted at the time that those words were what she most needed to hear. How Pilate must have shook his head when he heard those words — especially in a situation where taxes were coerced by force through a system of “farmers” — essentially money brokers given financial quotas to meet.
The initial charge, though, is that through Jesus’ teaching, he was twisting or perverting the nation of Israel. The term that is being used here is the Greek word diastre/fw (diastrepho), which typically refers to the turning or twisting of moral and spiritual truth. It is the word that the Apostle Paul uses to speak of the perverse generation in which he lived (Philippians 2:15) and the way the Bible describes those false teachers who come in to lead people away from orthodoxy (Acts 20:30) — someone we today would refer to as a heretic. Interestingly, it is the term found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to translate when Elijah is confronted by Ahab as the “troubler of Israel” and Elijah responds by saying that he has not “twisted” — diastre/fw (diastrepho) — Israel, but instead that Ahab was guilty of doing so given that he had left following the Lord and had followed Baals. Surely the same charge could be waged against the Pharisees and Sadducees on this day as they had turned from following the Lord to following the Baal of their own power and security.
Yet, the one thing that is not being twisted is the statement that Jesus is the Christ — a King. Certainly he is a King in a different way than is understood by either the Jewish officials or Pilate — indeed, if they rightly understood Jesus’ kingship they would have bowed before him and pleaded for mercy. Yet, they condemn and condemn themselves in the process. They are casting to the side the promised Messiah to preserve their status and power — how sad fallen human nature is; how wicked we have become, for is that not what even leadership in the church does when they seek to accommodate the world and not to serve Christ.
Politics…
“Thus Pilate went out to them and said, ‘What charge do you bring against this man?”
(John 18:29)
Interestingly, John is the only one of the four Gospel writers that records this question from Pilate. The other evangelists simply record the Jews coming to Pilate and accusing Jesus, but John inserts the proper protocol in this context — that of waiting for the Roman official to address them before they start spewing forth hatred and lies. There is no question that there is a bit of a political dance that takes place with this trial, with the Jews seeking to manipulate Pilate into serving their ends (and thus in their minds, taking the blood of Jesus off of their own hands).
Certainly news of some sort has preceded the Jewish officials to Pilate and his aides have given him some degree of counsel as to the nature of this mob as they bring Jesus to him. The relationship between the Jews and Rome had always been a trying one and there is no question that Pilate had in the back of his mind ways in which he could maneuver this in his favor — or at least in a way that would maintain the status quo. Either way, politics as usual is about to begin.
The sad thing about political maneuvering is that we find it taking place in the church, not just in the broader culture. People forget that the church does not belong to them, but that instead it belongs to Christ Jesus. How folks fall into the trap of using church to meet their personal needs, to achieve their personal ends, or otherwise to build a reputation for themselves rather than to build a reputation for Christ. How often even pastors fall into the trap of tip-toeing over Truth because they fear it will offend or chase away members or visitors to the congregation. All of these things are no better than what we see Pilate and the Jewish officials engaged in — protocol, perhaps is being met, but personal agendas are being sought. May our lives and our churches seek Christ’s will in life, not our own.
Whose Hypocrisy?
“And when dawn came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people deliberated regarding Jesus so that they might put him to death. They bound him and led him away, delivering him to Pilate the governor.”
(Matthew 27:1-2)
“And at dawn, immediately the chief priests made deliberations with the elders and scribes and the whole of the Sanhedrin. They bound Jesus and took him away, delivering him to Pilate.”
(Mark 15:1)
“And the whole council of them arose and led him before Pilate.”
(Luke 23:1)
“Therefore they led Jesus away from Caiaphas to the Praetorium. But as it was dawn, they did not go inside the Praetorium in order that they not be defiled but could eat the passover.”
(John 18:28)
Do you see the irony of John’s account? Here are the priests and other leaders of the church conducting a secret and illegal trial designed to frame an innocent man being concerned about becoming ritually defiled by entering Pilate’s headquarters. It should not surprise us that Jesus called these men “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27). They are concerned with the outward forms but have no regard for the inward spirit that is supposed to be guided by the forms. How often in the Old Testament we find God telling the people how he hated all of their sacrifices — not because the sacrifice was bad, but because they were just going through the motions and performing a ritual, not living a life of devotion.
Though we don’t live lives marked by blood sacrifices and ritual cleanliness any longer, how often it is that we end up acting in the way that these Jewish leaders did. How often we fail to get involved in the lives of those who are hurting because of what others in the community might say about them (or us!). How often we fail to evangelize prostitutes, drug addicts, homeless, or convicts in our midst. Our churches often participate in jail Bible studies and ministries, but how often do we embrace those same people once they have been released from jail? We are often quick to invite new people to church if they are “like us,” but what of those from a different cultural background, skin tone, or socio-economic strata? What do we mean then when we say that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek when we exclude people because of their background? How often we have condemned the hypocrisy of these Jewish leaders and have missed seeing our own hypocrisy?
Thus, it is in the midst of this that the Jews determine that their only solution is to put Jesus to death, and that is exactly what they seek to do by taking Jesus to Pilate. If you were a territory under Roman rule, it was Romans who reserved the right to capital punishment except for the case of blasphemy — hence their striving to convict Jesus of anything remotely close to a blasphemous statement — so it is to Rome they must appeal and thus to Rome they go, in this case in the form of the Roman representative who governed Judea — Pilate.
Who Struck You!
* Note: to those of you who have been following this blog, my apologies for this past hiatus. I have been finishing up a text on Reformed Theology that I began over the summer, so put this to the side to finish that… Thanks for your patience.
“Then they spat upon his person and they beat him. Some slapped him saying, ‘Prophesy to us, O Christ, which one of us struck you?’”
(Matthew 26:67-68)
“And some began to spit on him and they covered his face and they struck him while saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the assistants took charge of him having been beaten.”
(Mark 14:65)
There are times, when reading passages, where I cannot help but be overwhelmed by a sense of evil that permeates the actions that the text is recording. There is no other way to put it and any word short of evil, wickedness, diabolic, or foul just cannot seem to come close to describing these events. Jesus brought peace and truth; he was received with blows and spit — he came to his own and his own received him not (John 1:11). How could anyone act in such a way toward any human being is beyond me, let alone this human who is also God. To what end does this accomplish or achieve apart from demonstrating the wickedness of human hearts? Yet, that is exactly the purpose. Jesus endured the wickedness of wickedness for us even before he met judgment upon the cross — he is the Passover Lamb and the Scapegoat of Atonement (Leviticus 16:21-22) for his people — for me — and for all who are trusting in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Yet, let us take things a step further. Are we not guilty in the same way as these servants of satan who are tormenting Jesus? By our disobedience and intentional sin, do we not spit at Christ and mock his name? When we call ourselves Christian yet behave in a way that is consistent with a child of the devil, are we not just as guilty of hatred as those in the High Priest’s hall? I suggest that we are — and in fact, are doubly guilty because we know the truth as to who Jesus is. We may not have covered the face of our Lord and struck him with our two hands, but by the sins of our two hands are we not guilty of slapping our Lord. And, when we act sinfully thinking that God is not aware, are we not guilty of saying, “Who struck you?”
Loved ones, take these words to heart and ask yourself, does the way I live honor the one who endured this for me? If not, repent and turn from your wickedness, pursuing the righteousness of God.
Blasphemy!
“Then the High Priest rent his garments, saying, ‘Blasphemy! What witnesses yet do we have to have? Behold, you have now heard blasphemy! What do you rule?’ And they replied, ‘He is liable to death.’”
(Matthew 26:65-66)
“Then the High Priest rent his tunic, saying, ‘What witnesses yet do we have to have? You have heard blasphemy! What do you see?’ Then all of them condemned him as one liable to death.”
(Mark 14:63-64)
“Then he said, ‘What witnesses yet do we have to have? We have heard it from his own mouth!’”
(Luke 22:71)
A point, perhaps, in clarification. Some of our English translations render the High Priest as saying that they had heard “His blasphemy,” but that is not entirely accurate. Jesus has spoken no blasphemy and the text never inserts the personal pronoun within the sentence of Caiaphas. To make such an insertion implies that Caiaphas might have actually been confused about what Jesus was saying, thinking that Jesus had made a blasphemous statement. Yet, a better picture is of the High Priest manipulating the events of this trial like a puppeteer would put on a play and is seeking to use verbal force and innuendo to achieve the ends he has sought to achieve. He is a bully and those leaders amongst the priests who are with him understand that the only way to keep their positions and “move up in the organization” is to placate this forceful individual.
And of course, blasphemy had to be the charge that Caiaphas was seeking because it was the only charge within the context of being ruled by Rome, that they could legitimately seek the death penalty (in fact, it had to be a blasphemous act in or around the temple). Yet, there is no blasphemy on Jesus’ lips. Even in human terms, to speak of himself being a “son of God” is not that unusual for God’s people (Genesis 6:2; Deuteronomy 32:8; Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; Galatians 3:26). Similarly, there had been many who identified themselves as messiah’s of a sort, and again, this usually did not get the priests into such a frenzy. It is the fact that Jesus’ actions confirmed exactly what the prophets predicted of the Messiah and his miracles confirmed his divinity that got them upset — furthermore, Jesus did not simply claim to be a Son of God, but he claimed to be God himself — which, again was confirmed by prophesy and miracles — which would mean that the priests would have to submit to his authority, thus losing their own. That was something that the High Priest could not consider.
Isn’t it sad how often we get caught up in our own pride, our own status, and our own agenda — even for the church. Isn’t it sad how often we fail to notice God working through the humble in our midst when we wish to achieve a certain end or recognition. And isn’t it sad that we so often fail to notice God’s authority in our lives when we feel that we might achieve our ends. Oh, dear friends, what shall we do other than repent? For we are God’s, God is not ours. We are the clay in his hands — he does not serve us that we might achieve our ends. May we walk with humility and grace as we live our lives in this world and not seek our own ends, but seek Christ’s ends for us.
Riding the Clouds
“Jesus said to him, ‘That’s what you say. Nevertheless, I tell you from now on you will witness the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
(Matthew 26:64)
“But Jesus said, ‘I am. and you will see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of power and coming with the clouds from heaven.’”
(Mark 14:62)
“‘From now on, the Son of Man will be seated on the right hand of the Power of God.’ So, they all said to him, ‘Are you therefore the Son of God?’ So he said to them, ‘You say that I am.’”
(Luke 22:69-70)
So what is it that Jesus is speaking of when he mentions Caiaphas seeing him at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds? In the New Testament, we certainly affirm that this is speaking of Jesus’ ascension to his Father’s side and his return again in judgment (Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22), but how would this make sense from the perspective of one with only the Old Testament scriptures to guide him? In fact, the Old Testament speaks much to this work of the promised Messiah.
To begin with, Psalm 110 speaks of the Messiah seated at the right hand of Yahweh in power until his enemies are crushed beneath his feet (Psalm 110:1, Matthew 22:44), that the Messiah is seated at the right hand of Yahweh (Psalm 110:5) and that he will execute judgment on the nations (Psalm 110:6). Though it is not alluded to here by Jesus, this is the psalm that also speaks of the Messiah being part of the Priesthood of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4). In addition, in Daniel’s prophesy of the coming Messiah, he spoke of the “One Like the Son of Man” being given power and dominion over the nations (Daniel 7:13-14).
Even more pronounced is the language of the Messiah walking on the clouds of heaven in judgment. For example, Psalm 104:3 speaks of God making the clouds his chariot, Isaiah 19:1 speaks of God riding a cloud in judgment over Egypt, Nahum 1:3 speaks of God’s was as in a whirlwind and in a storm with the clouds being scattered like dust at his feet, and once again in Daniel 7:13 we find the Messiah descending from the clouds of heaven. God even presents himself to Job in the whirlwind (Job 38:1).
It is clear that in putting these things together, Jesus is identifying himself with the promised Messiah of the Old Testament and based on Caiaphas’ response in the verses that follow, it is clear that he understood Jesus’ reference. But what of Jesus’ reference to Caiaphas seeing him in the clouds? It seems to be a reference to judgment, that in the end, what these wicked priests will receive is wrath and judgment, not glory. When these men passed away from this world the next thing they would see is face Jesus once again, but that time with Jesus in the seat of power and pouring out judgment for their sins — a fearful position, indeed.
Loved ones, recognize that this is not the way one should desire to confront Jesus. The sad thing is that many people we know and care about will see Jesus in exactly that way and we have often been silent about it. May we be warned with the warning that Jesus gives to the Priests, while the believer in Jesus Christ will escape judgment, those who reject Christ as Lord and Savior will taste of God’s wrath.
That’s What You Said…
“Jesus said to him, ‘That’s what you say. Nevertheless, I tell you from now on you will witness the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
(Matthew 26:64)
“But Jesus said, ‘I am. and you will see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of power and coming with the clouds from heaven.’”
(Mark 14:62)
“‘From now on, the Son of Man will be seated on the right hand of the Power of God.’ So, they all said to him, ‘Are you therefore the Son of God?’ So he said to them, ‘You say that I am.’”
(Luke 22:69-70)
On a surface level there would seem to be a bit of a discrepancy between Mark’s account of Jesus’ statements and the account recorded by Matthew and Luke. Of course, they all record the questioning of Caiaphas that leads up to this point, asking Jesus if he is the Christ. Yet, in the record of Jesus’ response there is some variation. Mark records Jesus as plainly affirming the question by stating, ejgo/ eijmi — “I am.” Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, record Jesus saying, “That’s what you say” and “You say that I am” respectively.
So, what shall we make of this? We know in approaching the text that this is the Inspired word of God, so we cannot dismiss the potential discrepancy as an error in the record, but must ask the question as to how these two presentations fit together. The simple harmony would be to see Jesus making both statements and each Gospel writer presenting what they considered to be the most significant portion of what Jesus said, but the question that follows would be as to why. In addition, based on the statements of Jesus to follow that he is not hiding his divine claim, so the suggestion that Jesus’ statement, “That’s what you say,” is meant to hide his identity is unfounded, thus we must look deeper.
Imagine the conversation (based on the three accounts) sounding something like this:
Caiaphas: “Are you the Christ?”
Jesus: “That’s what you said and I am. And from this time on, you will see me…”
Caiaphas: “Then are you the Son of God?”
Jesus: “You already said that I am.”
The reality is that by Caiaphas’ extreme action, arrest, trial, and planned execution of Jesus, he is betraying that he understands that Jesus is the promised Messiah and he wants nothing of him because a Messiah would bring change to his power, wealth, and authority as High Priest. Thus, he is condemning himself by his own actions. Think about it, conspiracy theories abound in our culture today and they often make quite entertaining fiction. Yet, in most cases, the entities about which the conspiracy theories revolve typically don’t make much of a fuss over the matter. But when a fuss is made and a cover-up attempted, it is typically a clue that there is perhaps something to such a theory. Here is one more illustration of that principle. If Caiaphas thought Jesus a ridiculous impostor, he would largely have ignored him and discredited him based on Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. Such a thing never happened; instead, Caiaphas sought to cover up the truth by putting Jesus to death. Something is to be said for Caiaphas’ acknowledgment and rejection — and Jesus does so by speaking judgment, but we get ahead of ourselves.
While it is easy to judge Caiaphas for his wickedness, as Christians we also ought to take into account the way we speak and act as well as the times we reject Jesus by our words and actions. How often, when given the opportunity to take a stand for the Truth of God’s word, we back down. How often we simply speak or act in a way that dishonors God. How often we too need to be reminded that in judgment we will see Jesus sitting at the right hand of power as judge and will be held accountable for our actions and words. The good news is that in repentance there is forgiveness, but do not forget, beloved, that repentance means we turn away from our sins and seek Christ and his righteousness. May we indeed do just that.
A Dangerous Command
“And the High Priest stood up and said to him, ‘Don’t you have any answer for these men who are testifying against you?’ But Jesus said nothing. And the High Priest said to him, ‘I command you by the living God to tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!’”
(Matthew 26:62-63)
“And the High Priest stood up in their midst and questioned Jesus, saying, ‘Can you not answer anything to those who accuse you?’ But he said nothing and would not answer them. Again the High Priest questioned him and said, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed.’”
(Mark 14:60-61)
It is sometimes wondered why Jesus did not offer more words in his defense — I am sure that most of us would be speaking at a mile a minute were we in such a situation. Plus, would this not have been an appropriate time to share the Gospel with them? Apart from the fact that these servants of Satan were not interested in hearing truth, we should remember that Jesus’ silence is also a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7, where the prophet speaks of the Suffering Servant going silently to his place of execution — like a lamb to the slaughter. Here, more than 700 years before Jesus’ birth and crucifixion, God, through the prophet, tells us the details of his Son’s own trial. That sheer fact alone ought to make us shudder.
Legally, Jesus should have had no need to answer — Jewish law requires more than one witness and if these witnesses couldn’t even get their stories straight, Jewish law insists that there is no case against the accused. Of course, there is nothing legal about this trial at least in human terms. It is a farce. And the King of Glory chose not to legitimize their scheme, though it would mean going to the cross (and on the cross facing the real trial, this time before an almighty God).
The real mockery, though, comes in the High Priest’s statement: “I command you by the name of the Living God…” Here is a wicked human trying to use the name of the Holy God to command the Holy God himself (Jesus!) to testify regarding a false witness. Command indeed. It is Christ who commands us, not we who command Christ. Yet, one must be careful, for is this not how we pray sometimes? Do we not expect God to do this or that because we wish him to? Do we not sometimes get upset with God for not answering our prayers in the way we desire? Loved ones, let us not fall into the trap that causes us to think that God exists for our ends — no, we exist for his glory! Let us never neglect that great truth.
Finally, it is clear from Caiaphas’ statement that he does understand that the Christ is the Son of God from prophesy (Psalm 2:7; Isaiah 9:6). Caiaphas’ problem is that he did not want to admit that it would be Jesus. Yet, Jesus is the Son of God — the Son of the Blessed one — the final title being a wonderful reminder that it is only in God himself that we will find blessing and God has made it clear that the blessings will only be through the Son. Woe to those who stand and mock him (Psalm 2:12).
Tearing Down Temples
“They said, ‘This man said, ‘I have the power to demolish the Temple of God and to rebuild in three days.’’”
(Matthew 26:61)
“And certain ones arose and they bore false witness about him, saying, ‘We heard him say, ‘I will demolish this temple that was made with human hands and in three days, I will build another that is not made with human hands.’’ But their witness was not in agreement, even in this.”
(Mark 14:57-59)
So, even when false witnesses agree on the big lie, they still can’t get the details in order — such, of course is a standard principle in police investigation when trying to uncover who is lying about what happened — but can you imagine the level of frustration that these Jewish leaders must have been feeling at this point? With every botched false witness their blood-pressure probably rose a few notches and now, when they finally locate people who will testify about the same lie — there are holes between those stories as well. So much for making a staged trial look anything but staged … serves them right!
In terms of the confusion of these lying witnesses, what we find is a classic case of confusing the context — or of combining similar statements of Jesus into one that means something entirely different than what was originally meant in each of the two contexts respectively.
All four Gospels refer to Jesus’ discussion of tearing down the Temple, but John records an entirely different account than do Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In John’s Gospel, we find Jesus cleansing the temple early in his ministry and the Jewish authorities don’t get angry with him for his action, but simply ask for a sign that would show them on whose authority that Jesus cast out the money-changers and sellers. Jesus’ response to their request for a sign is to say: “Demolish this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). What follows is John explaining that Jesus was talking about the temple of his body — hence the sign of Jesus’ authority to cleanse the temple would be found when he dies and raises again from the dead. It has nothing to do with the physical temple in Jerusalem, though the Jewish authorities do go away somewhat confused, muttering that it took them 46 years to build the temple. The parables that Jesus tells consistently leave the spiritually blind — blind (Matthew 13:10-17).
The Synoptic Gospels, though, record a different account. In Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, and Luke 19:43-44, Jesus is prophesying the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans. This passage is part of what is sometimes referred to as the “Olivet Discourse,” a passage that prophetically looks forward not only to the final destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, but also to the end of times. In these passages, Jesus speaks nothing of a rebuilding — either physical or otherwise, nor does he mention anything about three days.
The interesting thing is that the two accounts do connect theologically, but not in the way that the Jewish authorities are understanding. Indeed, God will send the Roman armies to destroy the physical temple in Jerusalem. This temple was built by those that King Cyrus sent back to Jerusalem to rebuild and restore their cultural home and then it was added to by King Herod the Great in an attempt to win favor with the people. Yet, this is not the “Greater” temple that is prophesied by the prophet Haggai (Haggai 2:9). The Greater Temple is Christ himself, as alluded to by John in the prologue to his Gospel (John 1:14). Thus the temple that the Romans destroyed was meant as a foreshadowing of Christ.
The Temple that the Romans would destroy (not leaving one stone upon another, as Jesus prophesied) was also a place where sacrifices took place. Again, these sacrifices anticipated the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ — their only significant meaning, again, being found in the sacrifice that Jesus would make on the cross. Thus, with the death and resurrection of Jesus, the need for bloody sacrifices was brought to a close (Hebrews 10:10) and thus the temple no longer served any sacrificial purpose. The Jews, in rejecting Christ, would continue to worship at the shadow instead of worshiping the glorious Son, and thus God, in judgment, sent the Romans to wipe the temple flat to prevent any more sacrifices from being made (His Son is enough!). And, lest later Jews or confused Christians seek to reestablish a sacrificial system on the temple mount, God sent the Muslim Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to build the Haram ash Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) on the old Temple mount, the well-known “Dome of the Rock” being its central point. The rebuilding of the Jewish temple would first require the demolition of this Muslim holy site, something that is unlikely to take place. Once again, this is God’s design to prevent the Jews or misguided Christians from rebuilding the “shadow” that Christ fulfilled.
Indeed, the two accounts are connected, but certainly not in the way these false witnesses are connecting them…nor perhaps in the way that some Christians connect them today. Nevertheless, this false trial will move forward, witnesses or no, for the end had already been determined not only by the Jewish authorities, but by the almighty plan of God himself.
False Witnesses
“Now the chief priests and the whole of the Sanhedrin were looking for a false witness against Jesus so that they might put him to death. Yet, though many false witnesses came forward, none could be found until eventually two emerged.”
(Matthew 26:59-60)
“Now the chief priests and the whole of the Sanhedrin were seeking a witness against Jesus to put him to death but none could be found, for though many bore false witness against him, none of the witnesses agreed.”
(Mark 14:55-56)
This is one of those areas where a harmony is extremely helpful in trying to sort out what was taking place. It is clear that the leaders in the Sanhedrin have already decided what the outcome of this trial is to be. At the same time, they are still going through the motions, trying to make this seem a legitimate trial. Realistically this could be explained on the basis that they wanted to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the Jewish people and likely they were trying to save face with the Romans by presenting Jesus as a tried and convicted man.
To do this, they entertained many false witnesses. You can almost imagine the chief priests rounding up their cronies and manufacturing stories against Jesus, twisting the truth to suit their own ends. Yet, something wonderful happens. The Sanhedrin sitting as judge and jury over Jesus cannot find two witnesses that agree on their stories. You can almost see the frustration in their faces as they bear the contrived stories of witness after witness (that they have sought out even!) who cannot agree on what they heard and saw.
So what is the big deal? Why bother finding witnesses who can corroborate each other’s stories? It is meant as a false trial anyway. Their goal was not to slap Jesus on the wrist nor was it to imprison him. Their goal was to see him dead and according to Jewish law, no person can be put to death unless on the testimony of two or three reliable witnesses (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6). They looked hard and wide and eventually found their witnesses, but it likely took some coaching. That is the significance of Matthew’s statement that eventually two emerged — they were looking for, as Mark points out, two false witnesses whose false accounts agreed with one another.
God is Truth and there is no darkness within him. The only way one can accuse the Lord of Truth is with the lies of the devil — false and manufactured — twisted realities to suit wicked ends. The bottom line is that while Truth can exist on its own, evil must have truth to twist and manipulate. Yet, how often we are guilty of allowing our ideas to be warped and twisted by the false witnesses out there in the name of tolerance or out of the fear of consequences if you speak truth in an unpopular way. The bottom line is that we must let our witness of Christ be visible and clear in this world around us, if we don’t, we are no less guilty than the procession of false witnesses that walked before this morning of Jesus’ trial.
Time, Time, and What We Do with Our Time
“And, when the day came, the Elders of the people gathered with the Chief Priests and the Scribes and they led him to their Sanhedrin.”
(Luke 22:66)
“And they led Jesus away to the High Priest and all of the Chief Priests, the Elders, and the Scribes.”
(Mark 14:53)
The scriptures record that after Jesus’ interview with Annas he was sent to Caiaphas, but we don’t know a lot about the initial confrontation with the official High Priest of the people. Instead, the focus shifts to Peter in the courtyard and his denials. What we do know is that these events took place very late at night and towards the morning, thus, as Jesus is brought to Caiaphas, Caiaphas then takes Jesus before the Sanhedron — the formal legal body of the Jewish people centered in Jerusalem. Here, the “formal” trial will begin.
There is some degree of concern as to Luke’s reference of the day coming while Mark and Matthew do not mention the morning rising until later in the narrative. One might be tempted to resolve this dilemma by pointing to the difference in how the Jewish culture and the Roman culture marked time — the Jewish people marking a new day as starting at sundown (reflecting the creation account that there was “evening and morning…”) and the Roman people typically marking the start of a new day at midnight.
Yet, this approach raises more questions than it answers for two reasons. The first is that the Romans, being a world power, accommodated themselves to the territories in which they ruled, so there was a great deal of flexibility between the official Roman timetable when it came to festivals or political events and the common recording of time marked by people under the Roman Empire. The second reason, and a more significant one, is that Mark records Jesus’ death as taking place during “the ninth hour” (Mark 15:33). As Jesus is typically understood to have been on the cross from 12:00-3:00 PM, that means that Mark was beginning his day at 6:00 AM.
A simpler way to harmonize this is to see Matthew and Mark’s later, but more specific reference to “morning” as just that, the morning of the new day as the sun has risen and the hours of daytime are beginning to be counted (likely around 6:00 AM, or the “first hour”). Thus here, in Luke’s account, what we find is that the day is beginning to be near — arguably the first lightening of the darkness has begun and the new day is anticipated. And foreseeing the new day, Caiaphas takes Jesus to the Sanhedron for a pre-arranged trial to end Jesus’ ministry permanently.
Perhaps what is most important, though, is the presence of the whole council of Jewish leadership that will now be present. Indeed, this was required for major offenses to be tried, but it also makes all of them culpable in the execution of our Lord. How sad it is when those who have committed themselves to a study of God’s word are so blind as to miss seeing the one to whom the Word points. And, what is also important to remember is that these men stand as representatives not only of the Jewish people of their time, but of we Gentiles as well. It is because of all of our Sin that Jesus had to face these hostile men and die a sinner’s death. We were the one’s rightly condemned in this trial, but Jesus took that condemnation upon himself.
Loved ones, pursue Christ and do so with all your heart. Do not miss Christ in the scriptures as these scholarly men did and do not miss him in the person in the Gospel accounts. All of our hope rests in Jesus and in his completed work — not in anything we might do or achieve. He is worthy not only of our praise, but also of our sacrifice and service — may we all live our lives accordingly.
Honesty, Humility, and Grace
“And he went out and wept bitterly.”
(Luke 22:62)
Though it has already been mentioned, Peter’s reaction to his sin is worth dwelling on for a moment longer. How great the contrast is between Peter and Judas. Both committed great sins against their master and both grieved deeply as a result of their sins. Yet, there was a profound difference — Judas gave up hope, which led to his own suicide. Though Peter was captured within the miry bog of despair, it seems that he never gave up hope and he never totally separated himself from the other disciples — those who would show him forgiveness.
How often, when people fall into very deep sin, one of three things happen. First, they seek to hide their sin, neglecting that no one can hide from the eyes of God. Second, they isolate themselves from the body of believers wherein healing can take place. Or third, and worst of all, the body of believers shuns the repentant brother and refuses to forgive them of the sin they committed.
Yet, what we find in Peter’s experience is wholly different and a good testimony of how repentance ought to be approached in the life of the believer and the church. Peter grieved his sin and grieved deeply. He had betrayed his Lord. Yet, he did not hide his sin — indeed, it became part of the testimony of God’s forgiveness within the Gospel accounts. Secondly, he did not flee from the presence of the other disciples — the church. Surely there must have been some frustration at Peter’s confession, but then again, they had fled as well so also stood guilty of abandoning their Lord. Perhaps the only one with a right to condemn would have been John, who did not flee nor deny, but we never see such taking place. And clearly, as we move into the book of Acts, this group of men and women never held Peter’s denial against him. It never got brought up again in a way that would compromise the message of the Gospel of Reconciliation. What a wonderful model for us as the church. It would require honesty, humility, and grace, but is that not what we have also received from Christ himself?
The Rooster’s Second Crow, the Look, and the Tears
“And Peter remembered Jesus’ word when he said, ‘Before the rooster crows, three times you will disown me.’ And he went out and he wept bitterly.”
(Matthew 26:75)
“And at once the rooster crowed a second time and Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, three times you will deny me.’ And he fell down and wept.”
(Mark 14:72)
“And the Lord shifted position to look directly at Peter and Peter remembered the word that the Lord had spoken to him that before the rooster crowed today, three times you will renounce me.’” And he went out and wept bitterly.”
(Luke 22:61-62)
Three of the four Gospel writers remind us of Jesus’ prophetic statement to Peter about the rooster crowing, but only Luke adds that at the point that Peter made his third denial, Jesus shifted his position to look in Peter’s direction. It is as if Jesus was saying, “Peter, is this how you wish to leave me?” It is an act of discipline, but an act of grace as well reminding Peter of the forgiveness that is to come on the other side of this very dark night. We are told nothing about the look — good or bad — it is simply left to us as a reminder of Jesus’ care for his disciples. Some have struggled with the idea of Jesus, on the other side of an angry mob of people, being aware of Peter’s location, let alone his denials, but that criticism forgets that Jesus is also God as well as man, with a perfect knowledge of all that must come to pass.
During what we refer to as Jesus’ Passion Week — the week between the Triumphal Entry and his Glorious Resurrection — Jesus told an interesting parable. He was giving what we refer to as the “Olivet Discourse,” a sermon largely looking toward both the fall of Jerusalem and the end of times when Jesus would return. As Jesus closes the sermon he does so with a parable about not knowing the day or the hour of his return (Mark 13:32-36) — that he might come during the evening, midnight, or when the rooster crows. Now, it must be stated that the context is a little different given that Jesus is speaking of his own return, but given that this is the only other time in the Bible that Jesus (or any Biblical writer) mentions a rooster (let alone a rooster crowing), it is worth drawing the connection — a connection based simply on the principle importance of being aware.
How important it is for us to keep alert and keep up our guard when sin comes crouching at our door (Genesis 4:7). How quick we are to drop that guard either when we are comfortable or when we, like Peter, feel threatened. The question that the parable asks, though, is what will we be found doing when the Master returns? In Peter’s case, when the Master gazed over in his direction, he was found denying and disowning his Lord. In our case, when our Lord looks down on our lives from his royal throne, what does he see us doing? And when he returns again, what will He find us engaged in? May the crowing of the rooster always be a reminder to us to be engaged in our Master’s business. When Peter heard the rooster crow this second time, he came to his senses and fled — doing the only thing humanly conceivable — he wept bitterly. Holy grief overwhelmed him, but in God’s grace, it did not consume him. There is a difference. May we recognize our sin for what it is and grieve accordingly, yet not end there, but turn to our God for grace. Beloved, he will give it.
The Rooster Crows a Second Time
“Then he began to curse and to take an oath, ‘I do not know the man!’ and at once the rooster crowed.”
(Matthew 26:74)
“Then he began to place himself under a curse and take an oath, ‘I do not know the man of whom you speak!’ And at once the rooster crowed a second time and Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, three times you will deny me.’ And he fell down and wept.”
(Mark 14:71-72)
“But Peter said, ‘I don’t know what you are talking about!’ Immediately, even as he was speaking, the rooster crowed.”
(Luke 22:60)
“Again, Peter disowned him and at once the rooster crowed.”
(John 18:27)
It has been said that the tradition of putting a rooster on top of a weathervane is meant as a reminder of the denial of Peter and how often, by our words and by our actions, we too fall into that sin. As we reflected before, isn’t it curious as to how God uses such a variety of things to remind us of our sin and to call us to righteousness. And now, through history, we are reminded of this great truth any time such a bird crows.
We have already noted that Mark is the only one that records that the rooster actually crowed twice, something that ought not be too surprising given that traditionally Mark is understood as having been Peter’s secretary in Jerusalem — and if anyone would know how many times the rooster crowed, Peter would.
What should weigh more heavily on your soul, though, is the cursing that takes place on Peter’s part. As has been mentioned, Peter is desperate. On one level he is desperate to follow Jesus and find out what is going to happen to his master. On another level, he is rightfully afraid for his life. There is no telling what this mob will do if they get their hands on Peter. Peter knows that and the words that fall from his lips reflect the reality that he is acting in that desperation. You can almost hear him screaming, “Just leave me alone!” to those who keep prodding him. And, then, this third disowning of Jesus is wed together with curses.
Interestingly, Matthew and Mark describe the curses somewhat differently. Matthew simply describes him cursing or swearing that his words are true. Mark adds that this curse was an imprecation against himself — something along the lines of, “May God strike me down if I am not telling the truth.” These must have been devastating words for Peter to utter and then to hear the crowing of the rooster following right on its heels, it must have been a crushing blow. Peter was reduced to a broken man.
Yet, that is not the end of Peter’s story. The difference between Peter’s story and Jude’s story is ultimately one about forgiveness — both from God and by oneself. Judas rejected Jesus just as plainly as Jesus did and both were broken men. Yet in God’s design, Judas bore the blame of his betrayal to the grave and into eternity. Peter, though broken, clung to hope and in God’s design was not only brought to forgiveness, but remade into the bold preacher we find in the book of Acts. What a transformation takes place between these verses and Acts 2, just a couple months later!
But that is how God works, is it not! Through the process of breaking God shows us that He is sovereign, that He orders our days, and that He is King and Ruler over the universe. We serve Him, not He us. We get ahead of ourselves if we explore Peter’s three-fold forgiveness here, but we need to at least be reminded that for Peter, as dark as this night may be, the day is coming and the story is not yet over — and praise be to God that such is the case! May you too rest in the knowledge that no matter how dark the days may seem — God is not done with you either.
Details, Details, and More Details
“After a bit, those who were standing around went up to Peter and said, ‘Truly, you are also from them; your speech makes it evident.’”
(Matthew 26:73)
“But again he disowned him. But in a short while, again those present said to Peter, ‘Truly, you are from them because you are Galilean.’”
(Mark 14:70)
“And after about an hour had passed another was insistent saying, ‘Truly, this man was with them — he is also a Galilean!’”
(Luke 22:59)
“And one of the servants of the High Priest — a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off — said, ‘Did I not see you in the garden with him?’”
(John 18:26)
This sets us up for Peter’s third denial, but notice that this challenge to Peter is one of the reasons that doing a harmony like this can be so valuable, for each Gospel writer adds a little different piece of the puzzle that helps us to better see the whole. Mark gives us the basic account, but from Matthew we also learn for sure that it was Peter’s dialect that has given him away. This can be surmised from the accounts leading up to this statement, but here Matthew confirms that his accent has given him away in Caiaphas’ court. Remember, in ancient times, people were not nearly as upwardly mobile as they are today, so most people spent their whole lives (except for festival pilgrimages to Jerusalem) within a small radius of where they were born. Thus, a variety of accents surrounding you was more uncommon than not. Peter was from the north and that gave him away as he was trying to blend in with the southerners who were conducting this trial.
Luke, the doctor interested in chronological details, adds that about an hour has passed at this point from the previous denials. This again goes to support the premise that Peter’s disowning of Jesus was taking place while Jesus was being questioned — first by Annas and then by Caiaphas. Finally, John tells us who it is from this crowd of bystanders that speaks — it is a relative of Malchus, the one whose ear was cut off by Peter himself. I suspect that were I to witness someone attack a relative of mine with a sword and cut off his ear, that I would be quick to recognize this man, and that is precisely what happened. Peter is in hot water and when the question of “fight or flight” comes up, he chooses the latter. We criticize Peter for his fearfulness, and rightfully so, but realistically, how many of us would have acted differently?
And that is one of the principles that we must keep before our eyes — does our life present a bold witness that we belong to Jesus Christ? Or, have we kept that under wraps? Would your co-workers be able to testify that they knew you were a Christian? How about neighbors? Family members? If the answer is, “no,” then that is not the end of the world — the follow up question is just, “What will you do to correct this fault?” Loved ones, live out your faith in the public sphere — not to point a figure at yourself, but to point a finger toward Christ. This world is in need of life and hope, only Jesus can provide that hope and life — if you know that, share that. It is good news for weary souls.
The Second Denial
“Going over to the entranceway, another saw him and there said, ‘This one was with Jesus of Nazareth!’ But again he disowned him with an oath, ‘I do not know the man!’”
(Matthew 26:71-72)
“And the slave-girl saw him and began to say again to those present, ‘This one is from them.’ But again he disowned him. But in a short while, again those present said to Peter, ‘Truly, you are from them because you are Galilean.’”
(Mark 14:69-70)
“And a short time later another saw him and affirmed, ‘You are also one of them!’ But Peter said, ‘Man, I am not!’”
(Luke 22:58)
“Then Simon Peter was standing and warming himself; there one said to him, ‘Aren’t you also one of his disciples?’ He disowned him and said, ‘I am not.’”
(John 18:25)
We know from Mark’s account of Peter’s denials that after the first time he disowned Jesus, Peter moved over toward the door. John relates that Peter is still standing by the fire warming himself, though the simple solution is that it is a different fire than before and perhaps is one located much closer to the entrance to the courtyard. Likely, Peter is fearing that he is identifiable and is moving to an area where he can more easily flee. The last thing one would want is to be cornered by an angry mob within the walls of Caiaphas’ court. Then again, he desperately wants to know what will happen with his master. Such is the agony of this evening.
And, to make the matters worse, he is recognized by a second person. This time, some profiling takes place. Why would a Galilean be hanging out in Jerusalem at an illegal midnight trial unless that Galilean were connected to the Galilean who was on trial? In our age the idea of profiling is considered a form of racism, but there are times and places where a profile is made by the simple application of logic…this reasonably being one of them. And once again, Peter seeks to save his skin by denying his relationship with Jesus. This time he adds an oath — it is also clear that Peter is beginning to get mad. From our perspective it might seem a bit odd for us that Peter is getting upset, but then again, Peter is realizing that he has put himself in a dangerous place and is unable to “blend in” to the crowd. Surely we can relate to the combination of frustration (with himself) that must be overwhelming Peter at this point and in that context can begin to see why his anger is rising.
Our situation is different and thankfully we will never be in exactly the same shoes as Peter is at this moment in Peter’s life. That said, we are often faced with times when we are challenged in word or in action to follow Christ in dangerous times and settings. Certainly this is a lesson that every missionary in Muslim lands has had to learn, but it is also the lesson that is sometimes learned in the workplace or school. Surely in this latter context our life is not at risk, but we may be exposing ourselves to mockery or worse if we speak up as a believer. Yet, if Christ did this for us, why should we not face mockery (or worse!) for him? Loved ones, immerse yourselves in Peter’s struggle here and see the guilt and grief he bears after his failure. Learn from him and be willing to stand when the challenges rise around you. Honor Christ by being willing to sacrifice your comfort and security to speak truth into a dying world that so desperately needs the hope of the Gospel (and needs to see it lived out boldly in you!).
The Preacher's Study 