Injustice System

If God’s people would once again
take their Bibles, turn to John chapter 18. John chapter 18. There’s a recurring little episode
that happens in a pastor’s life, certainly has happened in my
life many times, where on Monday, as I turn to the passage next
up, the next passage to consider for the following Lord’s Day.
I wonder what in the world I’m going to do with that particular
passage and time after time I’ve seen where God has shown me exactly
what to do with the passage. There are times where I’ve turned
to some passage of scripture and I wonder why it’s even in
the Bible. at my first reading. And then
I remember that that is one of the key principles of hermeneutics. That when you come to a passage
of scripture, if it isn’t clear, you need to begin to ask yourself
the question, why is this here? Why did God in his sovereignty
and through the agency of the Holy Spirit insist on this passage
being included in sacred scripture? Such is the passage before us
even this morning. And at my first consideration
of it weeks ago, I began to wonder that not only is this passage
unique, but it even seems contrary to the synoptic writer’s account. We know that John’s gospel is
unique. We know that John’s gospel contains
many things that the synoptic writers don’t mention. And we
know that John leaves out many things that the synoptic writers
spend a great deal of time discussing. Well, that is the case of the
passage in front of us today. John chapter 18, verses 12 through
24 are not in the Synoptic Gospels. It is unique
to the Gospel of John and it is so unique that we need to
wonder and ask ourselves why on earth would God include this
passage? A passage that on the face seems
to be contrary, contradictory to the Synoptic Gospels account. A lot of space we see provided
in all four of the Gospels to these trials. And there were
a series of trials. In fact, most break them up into
at least two or three episodes each. Two or three episodes of
trial before the Jews and the Jewish courts and two or three
episodes before the Roman courts. ultimately being condemned by
the Jewish court, the Sanhedrin, because Jesus claimed to be the
Son of God, and ultimately condemned by the Roman courts because Jesus
Christ admitted that He was indeed the King of the Jews. As I said, all four gospel writers
addressed these trials And there is great difficulty trying to
mesh them together at times. Sometimes there’s a very clear
overlap. Sometimes there are very clear
distinctions between each of the synoptic gospels. But this
one is the most unique of all. John chapter 18, begin if you
would in verse 12. So the Roman cohort and the commander
and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him
and led him to Annas first for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas
who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who
had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to
die on behalf of the people. Simon Peter was following Jesus
So was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to
the high priest and entered with Jesus into the court of the high
priest. But Peter was standing at the
door outside, so the other disciple who was known to the high priest
went out and spoke to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in. Then the
slave girl who kept the door said to Peter, You are not also
one of this man’s disciples, are you? He said, I am not. Now the slaves and the officers
were standing there having made a charcoal fire for it was cold
and they were warming themselves and Peter was also with them
standing and warming himself. The high priest then questioned
Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching Jesus answered
him, I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in
synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews come together
and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question me? Question
those who have heard what I spoke to them. They know what I said. When he had said this, one of
the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, is that
the way you answer the high priest? Jesus answered him, if I have
spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong. But if rightly, why do
you strike me? So Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas,
the high priest. I think the first thing the saints
should notice is that there is apparent confusion here as to
who really is the high priest. It says that Jesus was, first
of all, led to Annas in verse 13. He was the father-in-law
of Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year. Caiaphas clearly
identified here as the high priest. And, as the narrative continues,
it certainly seems that that is who is being referenced over
and over again. Look at verse 15. The disciple,
which we will see in weeks to come, this is referring to John. John referring to himself in
a more humble way. The disciple was known to the
high priest. He entered into the court of
the high priest in verse 15. The disciple repeated in verse
16, known to the high priest. And so over and over again, this
reference here seems to indicate that the high priest is Caiaphas. And yet, along comes verse 19. We already know that Jesus has
been taken before Annas And here in verse 19, it says that the
high priest then questioned Jesus. And we know that this is Annas,
because at the end of it, in verse 24, Annas, fed up with
Jesus, sends him to Caiaphas, the high priest. There’s an answer
to this. It’s seemingly contradictory,
it’s seemingly problematic, But once we begin to look at the
passage, we will gain clarity. We’ve come to the first of a
series of messages on what I would title the injustice system. Jesus Christ finds himself literally
in the teeth of falsehood, in the teeth of an ungodly machinery
known as the so-called justice system of the day. Not only the
Jewish justice system, which should have been If there was
anything that was going to be in Christ’s favor, it would have
been the Jewish justice system, but also the Roman justice system,
known to be one of the most precise throughout all history in its
laws for trial. And so Jesus Christ finds Himself,
even has placed Himself in the teeth of this machinery, that
I would call the injustice system. And what we have in the course
of considering Annas, the high priest, we have a series of assertions
of unjust authority. And this is Jesus Christ having
placed himself in that position. The first assertion of unjust
authority we see by Annas is what I would call an unauthorized
summons. Look at verse 12. So the Roman
cohort, the Romans haven’t given up on this, they haven’t let
go of the prisoner. In fact, now they take him into
custody. The Roman cohort and the commander. It’s not like they were off-duty.
It’s not as if they had quit their jobs and given the matter
over to the Jewish police officers. The Roman cohort is still in
control. The Roman cohort effects the
arrest together with their commander. But it says that they were accompanied.
Verse 12, the company is the officers of the Jews, the temple
police, if you will. They arrested Jesus. Now, the
Roman soldiers would have done this under the command of their
leader, and they would have bound Christ and eventually handed
him over to the temple police to take him to trial. And so
this arrest follows on the episode that we reviewed already in chapter
18 verses 1 through 11, the episode with Peter and the sword and
the healing of the ear and the sticks and the clubs and the
swords and the lamps, all of it. And here’s Christ now submitting
himself for arrest to these men. As I said, it would have been
carried out by the Romans, and they eventually would have handed
him over to the temple police. But it says that they seized
him. They formally arrested him. Did they read him his rights?
Were there such in that day? We don’t know, but this is a
very formal proceeding by very precise legal appointees. And so note that
not only is Jesus arrested, but he is bound like a dangerous
criminal. Now some of this is a matter
of course that when somebody was taken into custody, not unlike
our day, their hands are secured behind their back. Jesus, you
might remember, had escaped the grasp of the Jewish authorities
on numerous occasions. as if he were a phantom and they
didn’t know what to do with him and so remember Judas’s insistence
is that they not only arrest him but they bind him and they
take him and hold him very securely but then you add to that the
remarkable situation that had just occurred that at mere request
of finding Jesus, they literally fall back onto the ground. They’re rolling around and flailing
around. And so even the Roman soldiers,
if they weren’t inclined to bind the Lord, they did so. This is no ordinary offender.
And the Jewish, Leaders had already prepared the Roman soldiers.
They had prepared the commander. They knew exactly what the potential
was for trouble. And so they tie up Jesus like
a common prisoner. But I want you to note verse
13. Take it in the flow of the passage. The Roman cohort that commanded
the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him and led him
to Annas first. When John here says first, we
know that John is aware of the Synoptic Gospels. John has written
much later than any of the other Gospels, and so what John is
doing is waving a flag telling us that he is inserting something
into the the greater narrative of the passion that none of the
other gospel writers had included. John is telling us that there
was a preliminary examination, unofficial, but it took place
before this trial, before Caiaphas. I believe that it’s very likely
that Annas and Caiaphas, I’ll tell you more about them in a
moment, but they lived in quarters near to one another and they
just happened to stop by Annas’ house at his request, mind you,
before they made it to the official destination of Caiaphas, the
high priest. Perhaps it was a family compound
with a common courtyard. Annas’ house would have been
there and Caiaphas’ house, the high priest, would have been
there as well. But if anywhere Now mind you, we’re not countenancing
that Jesus’ arrest was legitimate, but if Jesus should have gone
anywhere that night, he should have been taken straight to the
high priest’s quarters. He’s the only legitimate authority,
and to have been formally charged with witnesses before the Sanhedrin,
the Jewish court, that’s the only place Christ should have
gone. And so the first thing that you
have to notice about this passage is that there is already an assertion
recorded here of unjust authority by Annas in this unauthorized
summons. It’s not that they just happened
by Annas’ house. They were summoned there. He
wanted to see Jesus. He wanted to examine Jesus. Really what he wanted to do is
find fault with Jesus and accuse him and sentence him. Let me
tell you about the nature of the office of high priest under
the Romans. In Jesus’ day, priests were,
they might have been voted in by the people, but they were
dispatched almost as quickly by the Roman governors. They
were removed at the command of the Romans. And so the Jews could
hire and vote in, elect whoever they wanted as high priest, but
he could only serve as long as the Roman governors allowed him.
There were 28 priests that served between the reign of Herod and
the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. had served as high priest and
so in a sense not unlike our in our day and age where we refer
to even former presidents as Mr. President in that day they
would very likely have referred to Annas as high priest and so
in a sense he was high priest but he had no authority he certainly
didn’t have the authority to redirect a prisoner and to summon
him outside of legal proceedings. Annas had been the high priest,
but he had been set aside in the Jewish system, the Old Testament. Priests were elected and served
for life. Annas had served as high priest,
but he was deposed by the Romans. And even still, there are several
places in scripture. Luke 3.2, the high priesthood
of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John. Luke there
is setting the context for his own writing, and he says that
it was during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. Well,
Annas wasn’t a high priest then. We see the same thing in Acts
4.6, where it mentions Annas, the high priest, was there. He
was at one time the high priest. He had served in that capacity,
but he was no longer high priest. Even though he was removed from
office, Annas’ power and influence was so tremendous that ultimately
five of his sons, five of his own sons, would also serve as
high priest and one son-in-law. a man named Joseph Caiaphas. And so in the time that Jesus
Christ was on the earth, in the time of his earthly ministry,
the office of the high priest was absolutely rampant with disorder
and corruption. that even though priests were
appointed for life because of the Romans, they would often
be set aside, and yet still, especially in the case of this
one Annas, he would still call the shots, he still controlled
everything, and John wants us to know this. He wants us to
know that behind all of this charade that is going to take
place in the next several chapters, behind all of it is Annas. He wasn’t the high priest anymore.
But having held that office, he continues to ply his authority. One said of him, he appears to
have been a very wily person, and one well able to assert himself. The astute old man at the head
of the family exercised a good deal of authority. He was the
real power in the land, whatever the legal technicalities. So
Annas remained a powerful figure in Jewish life and in the Jewish
legal system. Annas is calling the shots here. Caiaphas is just a puppet who
is going to do his bidding. As we begin to look at Annas’
family tree, and I spend just a moment here, he was appointed
high priest in AD 6. When he was 37 years old, he
served until 80, 15. And then, as I said, a series
of successions of his own sons followed, including his son-in-law,
Joseph Caiaphas. Annas’ particular role in this
specific setting was that of, it could have been, he could
have been the priest, he could have been the president, he could
have been the vice president of the Sanhedrin. We don’t have
any idea, but we do know that he wielded a great amount of
power. He was one of the most influential
members of all of Judaism. With regards to his character, Just when you begin to step back
and see this dynasty, you can see that there was at the helm
one who was tremendously skillful in manipulating people, members
of his own family, members of his own Jewish party. Another
pastor said of him that he was very proud, exceedingly ambitious,
fabulously wealthy. His family was notorious for
its greed. The main source of his wealth
seems to have been a goodly share of the proceeds from the price
of sacrificial animals. No wonder Jesus didn’t make any
friends when he cleansed the temple. It generally takes a
clever manipulator to be the virtual head of such a machine
as the Jewish hierarchy, and that’s exactly who we see in
Annas. And so he was led, Jesus was, to Annas. He was to his
quarters, to his household, if you will. He was brought under
this house arrest, being bound, and this really additional line
of questioning Christ is submitted to before Annas. Annas had commanded
that he be brought and now he stands before him. And as you
begin to consider this so-called justice system, the reason that
I call it the injustice system, is that for a Roman commander
to allow this, was a criminal offense all its own. The Roman
commander was supposed to do exactly what the law said. And the law said that as a Jew
he was supposed to be submitted to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish
court system, But then for Caiaphas, for Caiaphas to allow this was
not only unshameful, rather, it was unethical, it was criminal. On Caiaphas’ part, as the high
priest, to allow Jesus to be carted around and to be pulled
in unceremoniously into Annas’ quarters. But there’s a problem. And Annas
is there to meet the problem. The Jewish court, the Sanhedrin,
could only meet by law during the day. And so Annas takes opportunity
to do some trench work prior to the next morning’s criminal
proceedings. This is informal, but it’s nevertheless
binding. Annas perhaps would even say
that he’s just talking with Jesus. But he’s drawing conclusions,
and believe me, he is forcing Caiaphas’ hand. According to
Jewish law, a prisoner could not be sentenced on the same
day of his trial. And so there’s another problem.
Not only is the dark already fleeting, that Jesus’ sentencing
can’t be on the same day, But Jewish law said that the
courts couldn’t meet except during the day, and so there has to
be some preliminary work done, and Anna steps in. And so that’s
why I say to you that there is no, if you look at your synoptic
gospels, there is no conflict here with the other writers.
Mark says that he was taken before the high priest. Matthew says
that it was Caiaphas. which is indeed where Jesus ends
up. But John, only John, for his
own divinely given purposes, records this additional scene
before Caiaphas. And once Jesus ultimately is
taken to Caiaphas the high priest, the charges have already been
formulated so that it becomes a mere formality before Caiaphas,
the real power figure here, is Annas. Look at verse 14. Caiaphas ultimately, you know,
as the son-in-law, you know, how fearful must he have been
of his own father-in-law. Not only respected, not only
did he reverence, but he probably, given the degrees that Annas
is able to go here, he wielded a tremendous amount of authority,
and he could probably care less of who gets the credit as long
as he stays in power. Caiaphas is a weasel in and of
himself, but look at verse 14. John wants us to know, he wants
to remind us the character of the man to whom Christ will ultimately
be submitted. Look at verse 14, Caiaphas was
the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one
man to die on behalf of the people. Now when we looked at that passage,
what John records there, in John chapter 11, is a prophecy that
Caiaphas didn’t even realize how profound what he was saying
was. If you would turn back to John
chapter 11, we’ll take just a couple of verses. But Caiaphas blurts
out this statement and doesn’t even realize how profound his
statement was. It was prophecy. That Jesus Christ
really did need to die. That there really was a need
for an atoning sacrifice in the Lord Jesus Christ. And that in
so dying, He was dying for the people. Look at verse 47 of chapter
11. Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a
council and were saying, what are we doing? For this man is
performing many signs. If we let him go on like this,
all men will believe in him and the Romans will come and take
away both our place and our nation. They were all in a dither because
they saw that Jesus was gaining in popularity. We’ve got to have
a plan. We’ve got to have a plot. But
one of them, Caiaphas who was high priest that year and it
isn’t it gives you the impression that this was an annual Office
that it was changed every year. That’s not the case What it’s
talking about is that fateful year that very year that Christ
was in the crosshairs Caiaphas just happened to be the high
priest One of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,
said to them, you know nothing at all. Wait till you see the
wisdom of this man. You know nothing at all, nor
do you take into account that it is expedient for you that
one man die for the people and that the whole nation not perish.
Already in Caiaphas’s heart is murder. He already is going to
set up Jesus to take the fall so that the nation will be exonerated
because of his pending kingship. Look at verse 51. Now, he did
not say this on his own initiative. And you know what you have to
remember is that if God can make a donkey talk, and God did, He
can make anybody talk and say whatever He wants them to say,
and that’s exactly what He does with Caiaphas. He puts the very
Word of God in his mouth. Prophecy. He did not say this
on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied
that Jesus was going to die for the nation and not for the nation
only, but in order that he might also gather together into one
the children of God who are scattered abroad. What a profound thing. But there is murder. There’s
no doubt about it. There is murder already in Caiaphas’s
heart. Caiaphas has already judged the
Lord Jesus. Caiaphas has been plotting his
murder for a long, long time. Even though his father-in-law
is the ultimate power, Caiaphas is all too willing to step in
and do his bidding. And so Jesus knows that before
Caiaphas, before Annas, before none of them, before this whole
injustice system, there’s not going to be justice. And we see
it. in Annas’ assertions of this
unjust authority. We see it not only in his unauthorized
summons. He had no authority to call Jesus
to his quarters as a prisoner, but we also see it secondly in
this unlawful interrogation. Look at verse 19. Unlawful interrogation. The high priest, that is, Annas,
then questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.
Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world. I always
taught in synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews come
together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question
me? Question those who have heard
what I spoke to them. They know what I said. High priest,
And it’s clearly Annas here, and we’ll see that more clearly
as it unfolds. But this is Annas, the high priest. High priest in title only, not
in authority, questioning Jesus. Jesus has been brought before
him and he’s examining him. And even if it’s possible that
Caiaphas is in earshot or maybe sitting next to him, Maybe Caiaphas
has been talked into giving father-in-law a shot. He may have been present,
but it doesn’t say that. But the whole thing is illegal. The whole thing doesn’t fit the
mold for an official and appropriate trial. To have the high priest
himself begin the proceedings with an interrogation of the
so-called criminal wasn’t legal. Jewish law had very strict rules,
safeguards for the prisoners. The prisoner was supposed to
be, not unlike our own justice system, innocent until proven
guilty. And the first thing that had
to happen is charges needed to be read and witnesses needed
to be produced. And all of those things needed
to take place before the prisoner was ever addressed, before he
was ever examined. None of that takes place. The trial here, the so-called
trial, was a mistrial. It was a total sham. There was no intention of giving
Christ a fair trial. There was no intention of providing
Him legal justice. All they wanted to do is hang
some charges on Him, sentence Him, and dispatch with Him as
quickly as they could. One records, one historian records
the Jewish law here. He said one curious feature of
legal procedure in the Sanhedrin was that the man involved was
held to be absolutely innocent and indeed not even on trial
until the evidence of the witnesses had been stated and confirmed
and only then could the argument about the case begin. Well, Annas
disregards all of that. He disregards all of the Jewish
law. He disregards even Roman law
under who he sat. The high priest questioned Jesus
about his disciples, about his teaching. He’s looking for something
to accuse the Lord. And he questions his disciples.
Maybe he wanted to know why they had attached themselves so faithfully,
so committedly to Christ. And then, by the way, tell us
about your teaching. What is it that you teach? It
isn’t surprising. that Annas would want to know
about the disciples. It isn’t surprising why Annas
would be curious about them, because he was mostly curious
about Jesus’ popularity. Remember, that is what has troubled
the Jews from the start, was Jesus’ ever-burgeoning popularity. And so he asks about the disciples,
and Jesus replies, but makes absolutely no reply about the
disciples. Look at verse 20. Jesus answered
him, I’ve spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues
and in the temple where all the Jews come together and I spoke
nothing in secret. Please note one little subtlety
here. Jesus puts himself front and
center. Very literally in his reply,
he uses the pronoun I emphatically. I have spoken openly, boldly. I always taught. The issue is
me. I’m the one that you want, not
unlike what he said in the garden. I am the one you’re looking for. I am the one. Don’t worry about my disciples.
He doesn’t say anything about the disciples. He doesn’t answer
any of the questions about them. He’s the one they want. He’s
not the head of some secret society. He has always taught openly. He hasn’t held back any primary
truths. He hasn’t been secretive, clandestine. He hasn’t pulled aside people
and created some sect. Jesus spoke in the temple. Jesus
spoke in the public places. Jesus did what was his to be
able to do was to stand and open the scriptures and to teach with
authority. So he ignores these questions
about his disciples. And he puts the emphasis where
it really belongs on himself and on his teaching. Look at
verse 21. where he counters Annas in his
foolishness, in his unlawful approach. Why do you question
me? Question those who have heard
what I spoke. You haven’t even brought charges,
Annas. You haven’t produced any witnesses. Talk to those that
have heard me speak. And when he says that, he is
implying that they are present and ought to be heard. And he’s
not talking about Peter and John, he’s talking about the many Jews
who had heard him speak. Essentially what Jesus is doing
right here is taking the fifth. He had no reason to testify. He had no legal reason to submit
to their demands, to incriminate himself. The accusers were supposed
to establish the case, to bring it independently. He didn’t have
to testify against himself according to Jewish law. And so Jesus challenges
Annas on this point, whether it’s right, whether it’s fair,
whether it’s just, to ask a so-called criminal to incriminate himself. He had no right to ask Him. He
had no right to ask Jesus to provide this evidence. We have a third assertion of
this unjust authority. Annas is on a roll. He issues
an unauthorized summons in bringing Jesus to himself. He engages
in this unlawful interrogation, essentially trying to incriminate
Jesus by his own words. And now we have a very unethical
use of force. And for any believer, this is
hard to even read. When he had said this, verse
22, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, is that the way you answer
the high priest? Is that the way that you talk
to the high priest who is high priest in name only, not with
any authority, even though he has summoned you against the
law and now is quizzing you against the law. We don’t know the man’s
name. He was probably a temple policeman,
one of the many who had come out to arrest Jesus with the
Roman soldiers. And he’s standing by there to
guard Christ, to keep him from bolting. And so he delivers this
blow, what really was a blow with an open hand, a slap, if
you will. And it was meant not so much
to inflict physical harm, but it was just an insulting move. It was deflating. And it says
that he struck Jesus in the face. We’ve been talking a lot We often
think about Christ going to the cross on our behalf. We’ve been
talking a lot about the many other indignities that Christ
experienced that evening. This is one of the ones that
is so hard for us to even fathom. That somebody would reach up
and strike Jesus in the face. But it’s one more illegality
in an injustice system that was now clearly out of control. Because
conduct like this, on the part of really just a guard, would
not have been allowed. This was not right. This was
not just. J.C. Ryle said of it, what a
low, degraded, and disorderly condition the Jewish courts must
have been at this period. When such a thing as publicly
striking a prisoner could take place, Strong evidence of the
miserably fallen state of the whole Jewish nation when such
an act could be done under the very eyes of a judge. And the
judge is Annas. And Annas looks and watches this
thing unfold and says not a word. The man should have been incarcerated
himself immediately and ultimately executed for such an act. He
took authority into his own hands. But remember, so has Annas. And we’d like to think that that
was the only time that Jesus was mishandled other than the
cross. But the next morning it would
take place again and again. Once they heard Jesus’ testimony,
Mark records, tearing his clothes, the high priest said, what further
need do we have of witnesses? You’ve heard the testimony, the
blasphemy rather. How does it seem to you, and
they all condemned him to be deserving of death. Some began
to spit at him and to blindfold him and to beat him with their
fists and to say to him, prophesy. And the officers received him
with slaps in the face. This was just the beginning.
This was the first of many blows that Jesus would receive. But
he responds to this one with incredible grace. Verse 23, Jesus
answered him, If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong. But if rightly, why do you strike
me? Jesus had just quoted to him, essentially, legal proceedings. He had just reminded him, and
graciously so, that you’re going about this trial all wrong. You
don’t want to do what’s wrong, do you judge? You don’t want
to go against the law, do you? And Jesus here tells us really
what he means in Matthew 5.39. In Matthew 5.39 Jesus admonished,
do not resist an evil person whoever slaps you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also. He wasn’t just saying that
we just tough it out. Augustine said of this very passage,
an angry man may turn in sullenness the other cheek visibly to the
smiter. In other words, we can tough
it out and turn and brace ourselves for yet another blow. That’s
not what Jesus was doing. And Augustine here says, better
is he who makes a true answer with mildness and prepares his
heart in peace to endure great suffering. We’re going to face
injustice just like Christ did. And we ought to do so with all
graciousness. And Christ’s words here were
just that. Could you show me where I was
wrong? Did I have the law incorrect
or aren’t you supposed to produce charges and witnesses? Aren’t
you supposed to follow the law yourself? He’s looking for someone,
anyone, to stand up for what’s right. to do what the law said. But there’s a fourth assertion of unjust authority
here as we close. Annas, as I said, is on a roll. Annas is out of control, utterly
out of control. Not only in this unauthorized
summons and an unlawful interrogation of a prisoner, an unethical use
of force that he countenance But fourth and finally, an unsanctioned
transfer. And you just look at Jesus as
almost a pawn in their hands at this point. Look at verse
24. So Annas, the high priest, sent
him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Annas, functioning there
with the title of high priest, without the authority of the
high priest, sent him. He didn’t have any authority to send Jesus
anywhere. The only propriety in this is
that he sent him where he should have gone to the first. Annas was looking for dirt. He
was looking for a case. He was looking to build an airtight
case against Jesus so he could slam the door on justice. And it just says that he sent
him. He dispatched him. He couldn’t wait to get him out
of his sight. and he sent him bound. Now there’s
this big debate that goes on in the commentaries that does
this indicate that Caiaphas or that rather Annas rebound him? That he had the soldiers tie
him up again? Or was he tied up the whole time during this
episode before Annas? And that’s the direction that
I lean. It never says that he was unbound. He was bound when he was delivered.
He was bound right after his arrest, and it never says that
he was untied. He stood before Annas likely
tied up like an animal. And I want you to note that the Apostle John, in his account, tells us nothing,
nothing about the official trial. Isn’t that fascinating to you?
That it was important for John, some 50 years later, after the
other gospel writers had already told their story, it was important
for the apostle John to include a little tidbit about Annas.
And in so doing, he tells us nothing about the official trial,
the one before the Sanhedrin, the legal trial. the official
court of the Jews, led by the official high priest, the one
not only with the title, but with the authority of the office,
Caiaphas himself. John is silent about all of that. He’s content, as is the Holy
Spirit who is directing him, to allow the synoptic writer’s
testimony to stand. The testimony about the trial
before Caiaphas in the Sanhedrin. but John led by the Holy Spirit
is compelled to testify about this one little episode which
if not for his testimony we would never know that Jesus Christ
our Savior who was subjected to so much indignity in these
hours and so much dishonor was also subject to this the injustices
of the evil man who is behind it all, Annas. And we will face injustice in
our lives. Woe to us that we ever usurp
authority like Annas did, but we will face such in our lives. Unjust summons, unlawful interrogation,
unethical use of force, unsanctioned transfer of prisoner. But ultimately
there stands one behind it all who is sovereign and who watches
over us. 1 Peter 4.19 says, Therefore
those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust
their souls to a faithful creator in doing what is right. God is
still sovereign. God was sovereign in all that
Jesus Christ endured for you and I, and He’s sovereign in
our lives as well. One pastor said, even if the
worst should come, and you die a martyr’s death, it is but the
execution of God’s plan for you. View your life as a deposit. lay it confidently in his hands
to be returned to you again when the time comes. And you will
find him faithful to what a creator ought to be, as Christ did. Let’s pray. Oh Lord God, we see what a loving
Savior you are. To have submitted yourself not
just to across but to the indignities and the dishonor of all that
came with it, including this unjust treatment by an ungodly
man. Lord, we thank you and praise
you for your sacrifice on our behalf. It indeed is truly great. And it makes us to appreciate
our salvation all the more. that you endured all of this
for our sake. You paid our penalty on the cross
and on everything that led up to it. All of the difficulties,
all of the injustice, all of the indignities were endured for us and for our
sakes. Lord God, we thank you and praise
you for Christ our Savior. We pray all of these things in
Jesus’ name. Amen.