John 18:28-40 – What is the Truth?

John 18:28–32 (ESV) — 28 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. 29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They answered him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.” 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

John omits Jesus’ “trial” before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (found in Matt., Mark & Luke) and jumps straight to Jesus and Pilate.

·  He tells us that the Jewish leadership escorted Jesus to the “governor’s headquarters” (vs. 28).

o   Fortress Antonia or the Herodian palace on the Western Wall.

·  And then John gives us some irony.

·  The Jews, while illegally and unjustly orchestrating Jesus’ murder, will “not enter the governor’s headquarters” (vs. 28).

·  They did this so that “they would not be defiled” and therefore could still “eat the Passover” (vs. 28).

o   The Feast of Unleavened Bread

·  “The Jews take elaborate precautions to avoid ritual contamination in order to eat the Passover, at the very time they are busy manipulating the judicial system to secure the death of him who alone is the true Passover” – D.A. Carson.

·  “Also ironic is that they use a Gentile to achieve their ends yet will not enter a Gentile’s house” – Kostenberger.

·  Murder would be no problem – ceremonially unclean would be a huge problem.

o   More cheap equivocation – kind of.

Jesus, unlike the other Jews, had to enter Pilate’s “headquarters” (vs. 33).

·  As a result, and unlike his accusers, Jesus became ceremonially unclean.

o   Probably no big deal to Him.

·  But, yet another example that He takes upon Himself the “dirt” of the world – even the Gentile world.

This is very similar to the “costly grace” discussion last week.

·  Whether it was going through Samaria and meeting with the adulterous woman at the well.

·  Or lodging with the rich, hated tax collector, Zacchaeus.

·  Or being unjustly bound, tried and sent to Pilate’s Gentile palace.

·  Jesus marginalizes Himself on our behalf – “costly grace”.

Then John tells us that Pilate accommodates their hypocrisy – “Pilate went outside to them” (vs. 29).

·  He asks the Jews what the charges are against Jesus.

·  The Jews answer with a non-answer – “duh, obviously he is evil or we wouldn’t be here” (vs. 30).

·  “The Jews’ response tacitly acknowledges their inability to ‘bring a water-tight charge against Jesus’” – Kostenberger.

·  Pilate’s response indicates that he “was well aware of the weakness of the Jews’ case against Jesus” – Kostenberger.

o   “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law” (vs. 31)

·  D.A. Carson suggests that Pilate’s reply shows us he knows they are running a scheme and wants no part of it.

The Jews press on.

·  Given the fact that Jesus is “obviously evil” and needs to be put to death, the Jews respond to Pilate with something he already knew.

o   “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death” (vs. 31)

A question immediately comes to mind.

·  We know that the Jews stoned Stephen to death (Acts 7).

·  We also know from Josephus that Jesus’ half-brother, James, was killed by the Jews in A.D. 62.

·  Roman law didn’t stop them in these instances.

·  Why didn’t they take out Jesus in like manner – legal or not?

·  “This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die” (vs. 32).

·  God the Father had other plans.

·  He is Sovereign and in charge.

·  Jesus was to be “lifted up”.

John 18:33–35 (ESV) — 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”

Pilate begins his interrogation of Jesus – “Are you the King of the Jews?” (vs. 33)

·  The consensus is that Pilate wants to determine if Jesus is a political threat.

·  If massive unrest were to come to Palestine because of Jesus, Pilate would be held accountable.

o   As with Caiaphas, the status quo must be maintained.

·  Pilate’s question also tells us that he had been in communication with the Jews prior to this event.

·  We know this because, “The fact that Roman troops were used at the arrest proves that the Jewish authorities had communicated something of this case to Pilate in advance” – D.A. Carson.

There are also some who see in Pilate’s question some mockery.

·  They suggest the question was as follows:

·  “You, a prisoner, deserted even by your friends, are a king, are you?” – Barrett/Kostenberger.

Jesus’ answer to Pilate is peculiar – “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” (vs. 34)

·  We are told that Jesus is seeking to define terms – Carson/Kostenberger.

o   What kind of “King” are we talking about here?

·  In other words, a political “this world” Kingship or a Kingship that is “not of this world”?

·  And with Jesus’ question and the conversation that comes, Carson tells us:

o   “Jesus, as it were, has become the interrogator; the prisoner has become the judge.”

As we mentioned earlier, Pilate is not really buying what the Jews are selling.

·  All the Jewish stuff aside – “Am I a Jew?” (vs. 35) – Pilate just wants to know “What have you done?” (vs. 35)

John 18:36–38 (ESV) — 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.

Jesus then drops the J-Bomb and begins to explain just what kind of King He is.

·  He disavows any notion that His is a political Kingship and Kingdom – “My kingdom is not of this world” (vs. 36).

·  Therefore, Jesus’ Kingship was no political threat to Pilate.

·  Carson even points out that Pilate would have had a sense that Jesus was no threat.

o   He didn’t marshal “his followers to fight and protect him from arrest” – D.A. Carson.

·  Jesus appeals to this sense with, “my servants would have been fighting” (vs. 36).

Jesus then goes on to concede His Kingship – “‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘you say that I am a king’” (vs. 37).

·  “The evidence is very strong that the expression is unambiguously affirmative” – D.A. Carson.

·  And though it sounds like it, it is not evasion – Beasley-Murray.

·  In other words, Jesus’ answer to Pilate is, “yes”.

·  Jesus then begins a discourse that reveals how His Kingship of the “not of this world” kingdom affects Pilate.

Jesus’ is a Kingship and Kingdom that Pilate must reckon with whether he “is a Jew” or not.

·  Jesus’ kingdom may not be “of this world”, but it was breaking into this world.

·  “It is essential that Jesus’ statement should not be misconstrued as meaning that his kingdom is not active in this world, or has nothing to do with this world” – Beasley-Murray.

·  For as Jesus Himself said:

·  Matthew 12:28 (ESV) — 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

So Jesus proceeds to spell out the implications of His Kingdom for Pilate (and for us).

·  Jesus said He has “… come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (vs. 37)

·  We mentioned earlier that “the prisoner had become judge” – D.A. Carson.

·  To this end, Jesus implies a crucial question to Pilate concerning His Kingdom.

o   Is my Kingdom true and will you affirm this truth by “listening” to me?

·  Pilate “…is confronted with the “light of the world” and must decide whether he prefers darkness or light” – Kostenberger.

Pilate’s reply to Jesus’ testimony says it all – “Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?’” (vs. 38)

·  He rejects Jesus claim and thus, implicitly, is judged as not of the Kingdom or he would “listen” to Jesus.

·  “As Haenchen observed, “If Pilate, face to face with this Truth standing before him, asks, ‘What is truth?’ it is evident that he does not belong to ’those whom the Father has given to Jesus’” – Beasley-Murray.

·  His dismissal of Jesus is so thorough that he concludes, “I find no guilt in him” (vs. 38).

o   “Nothing Jesus has said has anything to do with me…it’s all jewish stuff.”

·  He then lets the Jews decide Jesus’ fate based on a custom of mercy at Passover.

Pilate’s take on Jesus reminds me of Winston Churchill’s words.

·  "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened" – Winston Churchill.

1) WHAT IS TRUTH?

Both Jesus’ claims of truth and Pilate’s question naturally lead us to contend, however briefly, with this issue of truth.

Very quickly, we will look at the basic definitions of truth on:

·  (1) Jesus’ view

·  (2) Greek view

·  (3) Philosophical View

(1) John and Jesus’ Definition of Truth:

The word for truth used by John and Jesus is “aletheia”.

·  And our text certainly equates His truth to His work of inaugurating the Kingdom of God.

·  Jesus’ apologetic in John 5 also gives a good description of the truth Jesus is talking about.

·  D.A. Carson sums Jesus’ truth up well when he says it, “refers to the incarnation, his move from the glory he shared with the Father in his presence (17:5) to his manifestation in this fallen world to manifest something of that glory” – D.A. Carson.

John says this of Jesus’ truth:

·  John 1:14 (ESV) — 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

·  John 1:17 (ESV) — 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

·  John 8:32 (ESV) — 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

·  John 14:6 (ESV) — 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

·  John 17:17 (ESV) — 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

The Lexham Bible Dictionary (LBD) says this truth is essentially used three ways in the NT.

·  (1) Truth as Factuality – such as the fact of the Gospel and Jesus’ testimony about Himself and the Father.

·  (2) Truth as Faithfulness and Reliability – this is the moral dimension of truth and what God requires of us.

·  (3) Truth as Reality – real and authentic as opposed to fake and counterfeit.

This truth in John presupposes the God of Abraham, His covenant with Israel, the incarnation of Jesus, and Jesus’ identity as the second person in the triune godhead, etc.

(2) Greek Definition of Truth:

The TDNT tells us its etymology refers to the concept of “nonconcealment”.

·  From this “aletheia” came to mean, “what is seen, indicated, expressed, or disclosed, i.e., a thing as it really is, not as it is concealed or falsifies” – TDNT.

·   “In Greek literature, the words for truth do not have the same personal and moral connotation [as we saw above]. Rather, truth is intellectual. It is ‘the full or real state of affairs” – NBD.

·  The Greek idea of truth does not contain the “God” presuppositions of John and Jesus.

·  However, it did have a relationship to the “logos”.

It is very interesting that Greeks saw “logos” as having the function to reveal (active nonconcealment) – TDNT.

·  This is one reason why John used “aletheia” and “logos” in reference to Jesus.

·  Jesus is the revealed, incarnate Truth of God the Father.

·  And He speaks on behalf of the Father to reveal the Father’s Truth.

And in John, those that recognize and trust that Jesus is the Word and Truth of God who speaks the Truth are the “given” and walk in the light.

·  Those that do not, such as Pilate, walk in darkness.

·  Jesus told Pilate in our text, He came into the world “to bear witness to the truth” (vs. 37).

·  Pilate was skeptical – “what is truth?”

o   “…he doesn’t believe that Jesus, or anyone else for that matter, could give one [an answer]” – Beasley-Murray.

So we have seen how Jesus’ and John’s view of truth is different from a clinical Greek view of truth.

·  But what about the philosophical dimensions of Jesus’ truth?

·  Can it provide insight into Jesus’ and John’s idea of truth or even into Pilate’s perception of truth?

·  It can and I think you will see it has enormous apologetic value in defending John and Jesus’ view of truth.

(3) Philosophical Theories of Truth (from Doug Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics):

There are a bunch but I want to define 3 of them.

·  Correspondence Theory

·  Postmodern Theory

·  Pragmatism Theory

But before we do, I need to define the difference between an objective truth and subjective truth.

·  This is important because truth (and its moral dimension) will be either objective or subjective.

·  And in either case, the implications are quite different for how they apply to life.

Objective Truth:

Something is objectively true if it is “valid and binding” (Bill Craig) on you whether you or your culture believe it to be so or not.

·  Or looked at another way, the reason or foundation for a fact’s truth is to be found outside of the individual or culture.

·  Something is true because something that exists outside of us says so.

·  The nature of this “outside” is hotly contested – transcendent or not transcendent.

·  This is especially the case when it comes to the kind of truth that contains moral facts.

Subjective Truth:

Something is subjectively true if it is “valid and binding” on you only if you or your society/culture deem it to be so for whatever reason.

·  Or looked at another way, the reason or foundation for a facts truth is to be found inside the individual or culture.

·  Something is true because we say so.

·  This is the “It might be true for you, but it is not true for me” sentiment.

Greg Koukl teases these two out as follows:

·  “Subjective truths are based on internal preferences and change according to our whims. Objective truths, in contrast, are realities in the external world that we discover and cannot be changed by our internal feelings. External facts are what they are, regardless of how we feel about them” – Greg Koukl.

·  Objective truths are discovered, not made.

o   “We do not create the truth; we can only discover it” – Groothuis.

·  Subjective truths, on the other hand, can be “made”.

Now let’s move on to three theories of truth.

Correspondence Theory of Truth:

“A belief or statement is true only if it matches with, reflects or corresponds to the reality it refers to. For a statement to be true it must be factual. It is the nature and meaning of truth to be fact dependent. In other words, for a statement to be true, there must be a truth-maker that determines its truth [objective/transcendent]. A statement is never true simply because someone thinks it or utters it [subjective]. We may be entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts” – Douglas Groothuis.

·  Under this view, torturing babies for fun is wrong in every place and every time.

·  Under this view, we can speak of having a real, objective knowledge of God.

·  Under this view, we speak of “Truth” and “truths”.

Postmodern Theory of Truth:

“In a nutshell postmodernism holds that truth is not determined by its connection to objective reality but by various social constructions devised for different purposes….‘man is the measure of all things’ instead of being measured by them…Truth is what you make it, nothing more” – Douglas Groothuis.

·  Under this view, it is possible that there is a time and place where torturing babies for fun is not wrong.

·  Under this view, “Instead of the ‘knowledge of God’, we speak of ‘beliefs’, ‘opinions’ or ‘feelings’ instead” – Groothuis.

·  Under this view, there is no distinction between “Truth” and “truths”.

A third theory of truth has a great deal in common with the Post-Modern Theory.

Pragmatism Theory of Truth:

·  “To simplify a bit, the general pragmatic understanding of truth is that a belief is true only if it produces desirable or beneficial effects in the long run” – Douglas Groothuis.

·  “A true belief is like a tool that works well for whatever purposes you have in mind...If a belief is not useful or interesting in some way, then it doesn't matter. On the other hand, if it is useful over the long haul, then it is true - sort of like how an arrow ‘flies true’ when it hits your target, in this case your purposes” – Philosophy Forum.

2) TRUTH AND OUR TEXT

Given the above discussion, some obvious questions arise:

·  Is the truth espoused by John and Jesus objective or subjective? Why?

·  Is the truth espoused by John and Jesus a correspondence, post-modern or pragmatic view? Why?

And what about Pilate’s view of truth, how would we categorize it?

·  Kostenberger hints that Pilate’s view is a pragmatic one.

·  Pilate’s question to Jesus, “may reflect disillusionment from a political, pragmatic point of view” – Kostenberger.

·  In other words, whatever best serves his interests as a politician is truth.

Clash of Truth and truth:

So given the nature of Jesus’ truth in or text, we see right away it is at odds with much of the world’s view of truth.

·  It contains fundamentally different presuppositions – objective/transcendent truth (God) vs. subjective/relative truth (us)

·  It is no accident that in John, Jesus primarily grounded His truth with the transcendent, objective Father.

·  Again, refer back to His apologetic in John 5.

And from Jesus’ point of view, what is the “thing” that separates “Pilates” from “believers”?

·  “Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (vs. 37)

·  In other words, the separation comes from what one does with Jesus!

·  Is He a truth or The Truth?

o   He can’t be both – if the law of non-contradiction is objectively true.

This point ties us back into Jesus’ kingdom language.

·  We learned some weeks ago that those who trust in Jesus have both a place and position in the Kingdom of God.

·  In context of our lesson, this means that our place involves a transcendent and objective place and position.

·  Not a place made by us as Karl Marx thought (opiate for the masses), but a real place and position grounded in God.

·  Our union with Christ and His Kingdom is not subjectively true, it is objectively true – it is real.

So what – the Moral Argument:

For those that don’t have faith, how can we communicate the differences between Jesus’ objective truth and their subjective truth?

·  How do we highlight the differences and tease out the implications of each?

The implications of the moral argument seem to me to be one of the best ways to do so.

·  For example, reasonable people will all agree that what just happened in Connecticut was wrong.

·  But was it wrong objectively so or subjectively so?

o   Was it wrong because its wrongness was connected to a transcendent fact? (actually wrong)

o   Or was it wrong because we declare it to be so? (relatively wrong)

·  Brilliant arguments can be constructed to say that for society to function properly, innocents (especially children) are not to be harmed.

o   In other words, actions that harm others are wrong and produce no benefit to society.

o   The glue that holds society together is weakened by such actions, thus they are wrong.

·  But what is the problem with this view?

And what of the justice dimension of morailty?

·  Is justice man-made and subjective?

·  Or is it transcendent and objective?

·  If the first, then justice can be thwarted or avoided.

o   Criminal’s can escape, avoid extradition or kill themselves.

·  If the second, there is no escape from justice.

o   We all will stand before God – “every knee shall bow and tongue confess” – and be judged.

Without a transcendent truth, morality and justice, things will not be, and can’t be “put right”.

·  And to live and talk like they can be is irrational and just plain gibberish.

So we can try to nudge people to doubt their presuppositions with implications from the moral argument.

·  As Greg Koukl says, we can try to show them that, “their feet are firmly planted in midair”.

Summary:

“A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed" – G.K. Chesterton.

“Christians, of all people, must strongly affirm the notion that truth is what corresponds to reality – and must do so unswervingly, whatever the postmodern (or other) winds of doctrine may be blowing in our faces” – Doug Groothuis.

John 18 - 15-27 - Cheap Equivocation and Costly Grace - Part 2

Last week we looked at Peter’s three denials – his “trial”.

·  We noted that it wasn’t Jesus whom Peter denied, but being Jesus’ disciple.

·  We saw that Beasley-Murray suggested that this distinction was crucial and John’s intent.

·  And so to that end, we called Peter’s rejection of His association with Jesus “cheap equivocation”.

·  More on that at the end of today’s lesson.

We also briefly went through the nature of Jesus’ trial.

·  His trial had both a Jewish phase and a Roman phase.

The Jewish phase contained the following scenes (DJG):

·  (1) “Initial examination by Annas in John” (John 18:12-14; 19-24)

o   Our text today.

·  (2) “A nighttime trial before Caiaphas in Matthew and Mark” (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54)

·  (3) “A Sanhedrin trial at dawn in Luke” (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66-71)

The Roman phase contained the following scenes:

·  (1) Standing before Pilate (Matt. 27:2, 11–14; Mark 15:1–5; Luke 23:1–5; John 18:28–38)

·  (2) Standing before Herod (Luke 23:6–12)

·  (3) And then another standing before Pilate (Matt. 27:15–26; Mark 15:6–15; Luke 23:13–25; John 18:39–19:16)

This week we deal with Jesus’ “trial” before Annas.

·  While Peter was in the courtyard denying his association with Jesus, Jesus was being interrogated by Annas.

·  We turn to that now.

1) THE TRIAL OF JESUS

Jesus’ Trial before Annas – Scene 1:

John 18:12–14 (ESV) — 12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.

Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, bound, and led to Annas.

·  It is assumed by many that Annas was, at this time, located in the high priest’s palace.

·  Some even suggest he was living there.

o   A “feasible conjecture is that Annas and Caiaphas were in wings of the same residence somewhere in the upper city” – DJG.

·  Whatever the case, the thought is that this was a prearranged and deliberate audience with Annas, “the father-in-law of Caiaphas” orchestrated by Annas (vs. 13).

o   “…probably the matter was decided in advance…” – D.A. Carson.

John then also interjects a commentary about Caiaphas.

·  He reminds us that it was Caiaphas who said “one man should die for the people” (vs. 14).

·  John 11:50 (ESV) — 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.

·  Caiaphas’ fear was that Jesus’ antics might arouse the people to such an extent that the Romans might see fit to bring down their might upon the status quo.

·  Clearly, Caiaphas did not want to jeopardize the status quo.

·  John MacArthur tells us that Caiaphas served as high priest from 18-36 A.D. – 18 years.

·  Holding office this long may reveal, he says, what “utterly ruthless” lengths Caiaphas might go to stay in power.

Jesus’ Trial before Anna – Scene 2:

John 18:19–24 (ESV) — 19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 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. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 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?” 24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Before we get into this text we need to get into some background on Annas.

·  Annas had been high priest from A.D. 6-15.

·  From A.D. 17-41 he had 5 sons, 1 grandson and a son-in-law (Caiaphas) serve as high priest.

·  Because his family “had a monopoly of the high-priestly office” he “held a patriarchal position in the high-priestly circles” – Beasley-Murray.

o   In other words, he was the patriarch of the high priests.

·  Therefore he “continued to hold enormous influence” – D.A. Carson.

·  In fact, he “was to some extent the power behind Caiaphas” – D.A. Carson.

·  John MacArthur suggests Annas was “the most powerful figure in Jewish hierarchy”.

Annas’ power and influence are revealed in Scripture and explain what appears to be a mistake.

·  Both in our text, and in Luke-Acts, Annas is called the high priest even though Caiaphas is the high priest.

·  This is also because, like our presidents, he retained the title after he left office – John MacArthur.

·  In verse 19, John calls Annas the high priest even though he also rightly states in verse 24 that Caiaphas is currently serving as the high priest.

·  Luke does the same in Luke-Acts.

·  Luke 3:2 (ESV) — 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

·  Acts 4:5–6 (ESV) — 5 On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, 6 with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.

Because of his patriarchal status, power and influence, it is suggested that Annas exerted his power and arranged to see Jesus first.

·  The speculation is that Annas, in questioning Jesus, was trying to see the best way to have Him killed.

In The Murder of Jesus, John MacArthur puts it as follows:

·  “The plan was for Annas to listen to Jesus give an account of His teaching, and then Annas would decide what kind of charge to file. He had several options at his disposal. He could charge Jesus with blasphemy, a crime punishable by death under Jewish law. Since Jesus had said many things in His public ministry that the Jewish leaders deemed blasphemous, that seemed the most likely charge. But the Romans, who must authorize and carry out all executions, rarely approved of the death penalty for blasphemy. For that reason Annas might also look for a way to charge Jesus with sedition or insurrection. Understandably, Rome was not inclined to be merciful to anti-Roman agitators.”

There is one other probable reason Annas arranged to see Jesus first.

·  Annas “received a share of the proceeds from the sale of sacrificial animals” used for temple sacrifice by the Jews – John MacArthur.

·  We are told that Annas was so notorious for his usage of the temple to make money that “the outer courts of the temple…became known as the Bazaar of Annas” – John MacArthur.

·  And as we all know, it was Jesus that disrupted Annas’ money making machine.

·  William Barclay suggests that Annas’ meeting with Jesus was payback time.

It is in this context that John tells us Annas questions Jesus on “his disciples and his teaching” (vs. 19).

·  Which, as we saw, may have been just a fishing expedition for Annas.

·  Or an attempt to get Jesus to incriminate Himself.

·  And perhaps to find out if His followers were high enough in number to pose a problem – D.A. Carson.

Jesus’ answer seems to be twofold.

·  (1) The things you are asking about are well known.

o   “I have spoken openly to the world” (vs. 20).

o   I didn’t hide my teaching from the public.

·  (2) So, “why do you ask me?” (vs. 21).

o   BTW – It was against Jewish law to have someone incriminate themselves.

o   If you think I have done something wrong, call witnesses.

o   “Ask those who have heard me” (vs. 21).

o   “They know what I said” (vs. 21).

Annas was subverting the legal system and Jesus’ answer essentially called Annas out on this issue.

·  We then see that because of that, “the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand” (vs. 22).

·  Jesus finally replied to Annas’ witch hunt with “impeccable logic” – MacArthur.

·  “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” (vs. 23).

·  “If He was wrong about the proper legal procedure, they should have corrected Him instead of hitting Him [it was illegal to hit a prisoner]. But if (as He did) the Lord spoke accurately, what justifiable reason was there for striking Him?” – John MacArthur.

So getting nowhere, but perhaps establishing in his mind the best way to have Jesus killed, Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas.

·  It would be Caiaphas as the high priest that would begin to formalize the path to Jesus’ death.

2) THE “OPEN” MINISTRY OF JESUS

We saw that Jesus said He taught and spoke “openly” throughout His ministry (vs. 20).

·  John and Luke also tell us about Jesus’ out in the open ministry.

·  John 7:26 (ESV) — 26 And here he is [at the temple], speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?

·  Acts 26:26 (ESV) — 26 For the king knows about these things [Gospel and resurrection], and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner.

In order to get into the contrast between Jesus “costly grace” and Peter’s “cheap equivocation” we need to tease this out a bit.

·  “Openly” carries with it the idea of courageous public speaking and actions – BDAG.

·  “He works publicly, i.e, in the synagogues and temple, not in secret” – TDNT.

·  Jesus was not hiding his teaching about the Kingdom of God.

·  Nor was He hiding His relationship to it.

A comparison between Jesus’ ministry and John the Baptist’s ministry demonstrates this as well.

·  “John came ‘neither eating nor drinking’” – “Jesus came ‘eating and drinking’ and is accused of being a ‘glutton and a drunkard’” – Michael Bird.

·  “John is ascetic” – “Jesus engages in open table-fellowship” – Michael Bird.

So the “openness” of Christ was a willingness to put Himself out there for His ministry and in obedience to the Father.

·  Understanding the “openness” of Christ, we can now properly understand the relationship between Jesus’ “costly grace” and Peter’s “cheap equivocation”.

3) COSTLY GRACE AND CHEAP EQUIVOCATION

Peter’s “cheap equivocation” – self-serving:

Last week we got into Peter’s “cheap equivocation”.

·  His “equivocation” was opting to hedge his bets against his association with Jesus and deny it.

·  The “cheap” was because there was very little at stake for him if he did own up to his discipleship.

·  Or to put it another way, he gained very little (thus the “cheap”) by denying he was a disciple of Jesus.

·  Perhaps he gained a low profile so that he could stay up with Jesus without being bothered.

·  But again, this gain just serves to highlight Peter’s “cheap equivocation” – nothing was at stake!

·  And whatever else his “cheap equivocation” was, self-serving would be at the top of the list.

Jesus “costly grace” – selfless:

By contrast, we just saw Jesus “openly” declared His ministry and the Kingdom of God without regard for the cost to Himself.

·  And we know well that the free grace He made available to us through this “openness” was indeed costly.

·  Thus Jesus chose “costly grace” over “cheap equivocation”.

·  And whatever else Jesus’ “costly grace” was, selfless would be at the top of the list.

“Cheap equivocation” is self-serving – “costly grace” is selfless.

One need only look at the actions of each in our text to see this contrast.

·  Peter follows Jesus to the courtyard – possibly self-serving (“I have spent 3 years with this guy – now what”).

·  Peter denies his association with Jesus to gain entry – self-serving.

·  Peter warms himself – self-serving.

·  Peter disowns his associations with Jesus two more times – self-serving.

·  Peter even denied sticking up for Jesus – self-serving.

·  Jesus, falsely arrested, does not resist – selfless.

·  Jesus, unjustly bound and struck, speaks openly – selfless

·  Jesus owns up to His associations with His ministry – selfless

·  Jesus appeals to witnesses to even testify to His openness in His ministry – selfless

·  Peter’s actions point away from Jesus – Jesus’ actions point to His Father ordained ministry

So what was Peter’s problem?

Peter’s Problem:

·  Peter had not yet learned that, “The grace of God, mediated through Jesus, is free but not cheap” – Kenneth Bailey.

·  Or, as he puts another way, “Grace is costly for the one who offers it (Jesus) and the one who receives it (us)” – Kenneth Bailey.

o   Scripturally found in texts such as “the cost of discipleship” in Luke 14:25-33.

·  Jesus’ own ministry repeatedly demonstrated this principle.

·  The narrative of Jesus and Zacchaeus in Luke 19 demonstrates this beautifully.

Here is how – from Jesus Through Middle-Eastern Eyes – Kenneth Bailey:

·  Jesus enters Jericho.

·  Zacchaeus, the town tax collector, wants to see Jesus but he is too short and the crowd won’t accommodate him.

·  After all he is rich, and is rich because he takes their money – they simply don’t like him.

·  Zacchaeus climbs a tree to remedy his problem.

·  It is here something remarkable happens.

Jesus doesn’t marginalize Zacchaeus like the crowd.

·  He calls out Zacchaeus and invites Himself to Zacchaeus’ house for the night.

·  By doing this, Jesus deliberately shifted “the town’s hostility away from Zacchaeus to Himself” – Kenneth Bailey.

·  The crowd said, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (Luke 19:7).

·  Here is the problem.

·  “If Jesus enters Zacchaeus' house, sits on his chairs and sleeps in his guest bed, he will emerge the following morning defiled and in need of ceremonial cleansing. Is this the way a messiah should behave on the eve of Passover?” – Kenneth Bailey.

·  Jesus didn’t equivocate on his grace to Zacchaeus – He was all in.

What does this cost Jesus?

·  His “cred” in the eyes of others.

·  His pride.

·  All the things we refuse to give up on a daily basis.

·  Of course, this all pales in comparison to the cost of the cross.

·  But it is the little things (the cheap things) that we are faced with day after day.

·  And far too often we equivocate even on the cheap things, like Peter.

And the result of this “costly grace” to Zacchaeus is also quickly realized.

·  He finds He is compelled to repay what he has stolen.

·  “And if I have defrauded anyone anything, I restore it fourfold” – Luke 19:8).

John and Luke speak to this idea that Jesus’ grace is not cheap for us as follows:

·   “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30)

·   “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:33)

Peter’s Solution:

It seems that through the Holy Spirit, Peter learned that grace is indeed free but not cheap.

·  As a disciple to Jesus, there is no room for:

o   Equivocation

o   Fence-Straddling

o   Compartmentalizing

o   Self-Serving behavior

·  Following Christ ain’t cheap.

But amen that the Holy Spirit displaced Peter’s instinct for selfishness with the freedom of self-forgetfulness and selflessness!

·  And Peter’s “cheap equivocation” was replaced with jail, persecution and eventually the loss of his own life.