Today’s passage: John 18:19-27
Helpful thoughts:
- The high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching because this was a religious/theological trial. Jesus had done nothing wrong and they knew that. His only “crime” would be teaching what they considered to be heretical and blasphemous.
- Jesus’ answer in verses 20-21 simply calls on Annas to do what should have been done in the first place. If there is a trial, there must be a charge. You cannot put someone on trial hoping he will commit a new crime. This trial was unjust.
- Jesus was guilty of no crime, yet was struck and bound.
- Jesus’ answer in verses 20-21 simply calls on Annas to do what should have been done in the first place. If there is a trial, there must be a charge. You cannot put someone on trial hoping he will commit a new crime. This trial was unjust.
- Peter again denies Jesus, twice and three times. It appears the reason he was asked three times is because it was so obvious. There was even an eye-witness. They knew he was lying and embarrassed.
- All these realities (And more), in this moment, boiled over in Peter’s heart as he went away and wept bitterly (Luke 22:60-62).
Questions to consider:
- What is the sad irony of the question, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” Who had the officer just struck? Who should have been respecting who?
- We know Peter was grieved by what happened that night. But how do we know that his grief became a godly grief and not a worldly grief (Not a pity party for himself)? (2 Corinthians 7:10-13) How can we take encouragement from Peter’s failure, subsequent repentance and spiritual victory?
- Why shouldn’t it surprise us when we see that Jesus’ trials were unjust? Did Jesus do anything worthy of punishment? How does the illegitimacy of these trials bolster our confidence in Christ’s ability to be our spotless sacrifice? (1 Peter 3:18)