If you were to go to a baseball game, concert, you would be handed a program as you walked in. And you'd look at that program, and you would then learn who's up next, or what song is being played next. As you walked in this morning, you were handed an outline of where I was headed this morning. This morning, my outline is so simple that you don't need it. Oh, I hope you take advantage of it. I hope you take notes. I hope you find some truths that we're going to expose from Scripture that will be life-changing and transforming for you. But the outline is so simple that you can easily put it in your mind. We're going to focus our attention Because of the Scriptures, we draw meaning from the Scriptures. We call this exegesis, exegetical preaching. The truths that we highlight come directly from the text. We're going to talk about two men, the bully and the betrayer. the bully who brought injustice to Jesus and the betrayer who brought injury to Jesus. I'm going to flesh out my sermon in a sentence with these two men and their lives. My sermon is but six words. We can boil it all down to just six words. And after I say them, if you would like to get up and leave, that's maybe okay. I won't be hurt. Here it is. Jesus bore sin to forgive sinners. Jesus bore sin to forgive sinners. Our text this morning comes from John chapter 18. Last time, as we were in John 18, we saw Jesus arrested in the garden. Judas betrayed him. This morning, we we begin looking at the two different kinds of trials that Jesus experienced. He experienced a religious trial and then a political trial. The religious trial was from the Jewish authorities. The political trial was before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. This morning we're gonna look at just the first one, the religious trial, and I put the word trial in quotation marks because it's a sham, it's an offense to a proper judicial process. We're looking at John 18 beginning at verse 12, and I would invite you to follow along as I read aloud. So the Roman cohort and commander of 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 and 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 the men's disciples, are you? And 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 have always taught in synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews have 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. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, You are not also one of his disciples, are you? He denied it and said, I am not. One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, Did I not see you in the garden with him? Peter then denied it again. and immediately a rooster crowed. Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium, and it was early." Just like a good novel, There was a back and forth between characters and you see how the story plays out as each character takes another step forward in the storyline. And so our text begins with Annas and then shifts to Peter and then back to Annas and then back to the Apostle Peter. If I was to put a harmony of the Gospels in your hand, and you would see this religious trial, again in air quotes, in front of you, you would have Matthew and Mark and Luke and John's records right there for you to read. you would find some differences. Remember, the synoptic Gospels, meaning similar, are different from the supplemental Gospel, John's Gospel, in that they include different pieces of information. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for example, give us detail about the religious trial before Caiaphas. John mentions the trial before Caiaphas. You'll see it in verse 24 of chapter 18, where Annas sends Jesus bound to Caiaphas. And then in verse 28, he's led from Caiaphas. But there's no detail of the trial that Jesus endures before Caiaphas. Instead, John mentions what the other three do not mention regarding this religious trial, namely that Jesus stood before Annas. Who was this guy? Who was Annas? Well, in verse 13, we read that he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Who was at the end of verse 14, identified as the high priest that year. It doesn't mean that Annas and Caiaphas flip-flopped. One year, one's the high priest, and the next year, the next one's the high priest. No, in that year, in that fateful year, in that year that Jesus was crucified, that in that year Caiaphas was the high priest. Now the Jews had a long-standing tradition that that one who is high priest stood as high priest for the rest of his life. And there was only one at a time. Now Caiaphas is mentioned in verse 13 as the high priest. But I find it interesting that elsewhere in the scripture, Annas is also mentioned as the high priest. For example, when Luke introduces the Baptist, he says, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came to John. son of Zacharias. Pilate acknowledged the same kind of tricky relationship here between Annas and Caiaphas. Later in chapter 18 of John's Gospel, verse 35, Pilate says, your own nation and the chief priests, plural, delivered you to me. What's going on here? Well, Annas was appointed high priest in AD 6. Now, you have to understand that the high priest was the highest authority in the Jewish culture. He was the one who sat over the Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin. This was something, as Rome walked in and took over the Jewish world, The Romans didn't buy into Jewish tradition of having one person be the high priest for life. No, that was something that the Romans had their fingers all over, and they controlled that. The person who was high priest went to the highest bidder. That is, that Jew who was able to buy bribe, their way into that position was given the title and the authority. In 6 AD, Annas was the one who ponied up and vowing loyalty to Rome, bought his way into that particular position. Now he was high priest from AD 6 to 15. In that year, AD 15, he was deposed by the Roman governor Valerius Gratis. Now Gratis was Pontius Pilate's predecessor. He served as the governor, and no doubt, Annas did something to tick off the new governor. And the new governor, having the authority to do so, deposed Annas and got another high priest. But in the nine years that Annas served as high priest, he dug his fingers very deeply into Jewish culture and society, such that he established a dynasty. Five of his sons. One of his son-in-laws, whom we know to be Caiaphas, and one of his grandsons served as high priest. And he was the one pulling all of the strings on that marionette. The Jews hated Annas. He was a brutish bully, and the entire dynasty of Annas was loathsome, was a curse word in the mouths of the Jews in the first century. Listen to the words of 19th century scholar Alfred Edersheim. He wrote this, is better known in contemporary Jewish history than that of Annas. No person deemed more fortunate or successful, but none also more generally execrated, that is, abhorred, cursed, than the late high priest. Listen to these words. in the Talmud. The Talmud is a detail of Jewish law and tradition a few centuries after Jesus. Quote, Woe to the house of Annas! Woe to their serpent's hiss! They are high priests. Their sons are keepers of the treasury. Their sons-in-law are guardians of the temple, and their servants beat the people with staves. Why such angst? Why such vitriolic hatred of this man and his ilk, his children? Well, there's a long list. But let me boil it down to just two things. First, as high priest, Annas, Caiaphas, and all the sons, grandson, the high priest is responsible for setting the tone of communion with Yahweh. They are to be the embodiment submission to the Lord God Almighty. But Annas and his family presented themselves not as those submissive to Yahweh, but those submissive to the Romans. They were in bed with Rome, and the people hated them for that political loyalty pushing God out of the temple altogether. Oh, but all of the temple work was still intact. And here's the second reason why the Jews hated Annas so much, was because of the way they twisted all of what happened in the temple. As high priests, they were there to lead the people to accept their offerings unto the Lord, their offerings of money, their offerings of sacrificial animals. When people traveled, to Jerusalem, as was the required habit of all Jewish males into Jerusalem. They often came from foreign lands. And as you would expect, they had foreign currency. But foreign currency, by Jewish law, was not allowed into the temple. It had to be temple currency. And when they brought an offering, not of money, but of animals to sacrifice, they had to be without blemish. They had to be healthy animals. No disabilities could be seen on these animals. And so Annis saw an opportunity to help travelers coming into the city who may not have had the best unblemished animals in their flock. They may have come with their foreign currency. And so he provided a way for them, these travelers, these worshipers, transfer their foreign currency into temple currency, and he provided a way for them to bring their animals in, and if they did have blemishes, they could have a pre-certified, blemish-free animal to sacrifice unto the Lord. Now, on paper, as an idea, That sounds wonderful. What a way to help out people. They just simply want to come and worship the Lord. And if he can make that pathway clearer, well, that would be a good thing, would it not? Well, Annis set up shop in the temple. It was called the Bazaar of Annas. It was a money-making marketplace, where people would come and they would want to exchange their foreign currency for temple currency, but the exchange rate was exorbitant. And when they brought their animals, and hired inspectors that would ensure that those animals being brought into the temple for sacrifice were indeed free of blemish, free of illness, free of deformity. But routinely, it didn't matter the condition of the animals. Those that were brought into the temple were deemed to be unfit for sacrifice. What he provided then was a way for worshipers to purchase animals that had been pre-certified as being blemish-free, healthy. The Scottish scholar William Barclay noted, quote, outside the temple, a pair of doves could cost as little as four pence Inside, they could cost as much as 75 centpence. That's what we call usury, graft, corruption, abuse. This is the work of a bully, taking advantage of people not doing his job, but stealing from those who came simply to worship the Lord. On two occasions, John chapter two, Matthew chapter 21. At the beginning of the end of Jesus' life, we have recorded in scripture Jesus walking into the temple and cleansing the temple of all of this corruption and abuse of Yahweh worshipers. It's only recorded twice, but knowing Jesus, I wouldn't be surprised if he did this every time he walked into Jerusalem. He stepped into the temple and he saw the Bazaar of Annas in full speed. And he cast them out. Here's what we need to take note of as we look at this bully named Annas. Every time, maybe not every time, but every time Jesus stepped into Jerusalem, stepped into the temple, Annas took a financial hit. He had motive. to make sure that Jesus was taken out. He was not the high priest, officially. He didn't have the name on his business card, or the title on his business card, high priest, anymore. But people referred to him as the high priest, much as we've referred to past presidents in this country as Mr. President. So Annas was Mr. High Priest. He was the marionette master. So why is it that John includes this particular event with Annas and not the official religious trial with Caiaphas? I think it's because he saw in Annas a picture, a description, a blood and bones kind of representation of the kind of person Jesus came as a sacrifice for. Look at verse 19. Here's more of this episode that Jesus encounters with Annas. We know he's standing before Annas. Verses 13 tell us that. Verse 19, you get to the meat of this interrogation. The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Now Ennis was not interested in learning anything about Jesus, what he said, what he stood for. He was looking for dirt. He was looking for anything he could claim that he and his son-in-law Caiaphas could pin on Jesus as a justifying reason to exterminate him. Jesus answered, verse 20, I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews came together and I spoke nothing in secret. What Jesus said on one occasion was what he said on another. He didn't have one private message and then one public message. He was consistent all the time. So now Jesus goes on the offensive in verse 21. Why do you question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them. They know what I said. Now what Jesus is doing is he is forcing Annas to stare into the Jewish law. The Jewish law described in a court proceeding like this that the accused would stand before the magistrate, the Jewish authority, and the charge would be read against him and then witnesses for and against the accused would be brought, and their testimony would be weighed. In this kind of a court proceeding at this stage, the accused would say nothing. The accused would be asked nothing. It was all to establish the charge and witnesses for and against the accused person would be brought forward. In other words, in every step, Annas has violated the law he is there to uphold. Jesus challenged him on that. Why do you question me? That was not his place. That was not the time for the accused to speak. He knew that. But Annas also knew that he didn't have anything of substance to bring against Jesus. Oh, he wanted him gone and back. But he was trying to walk this line between the law and his desire. Isn't that the way sinners work? We will use the law as long as it serves our interests, but when it no longer serves our interests or we can't get our own way with the law, We will do everything we can to get around it. That was Annas, verse 22. When Jesus had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, slapped Jesus, we might render it. Is that the way you answer the high priest? Now this is an underling. who is looking to score points with his boss, Annas. Annas is standing there, having been challenged by Jesus, and now he has egg dripping from his face. And so here is this underling who stands up for his boss. Is that any way for you to answer the high priest? and Jesus turns and answers him. If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong. Have I said anything, have I done anything incorrectly in opposition to Jewish law? Point it out to me. But if rightly, if I have spoken rightly, Why do you strike me? Are you not interested in the truth? Do you not live according to the truth?" Jesus might have also said to this man. And now both of them have egg dripping from their face. I suppose there are some who would say Jesus isn't following his own words because of how he is taking offense and being very direct with Annas and this underling officer. I want you to notice that Jesus took his own medicine. He turned the other cheek. He submitted to this unjust, unrighteous trial. He submitted to this unjust, unrighteous execution stake, we call the cross, in order that He might glorify the Father and fulfill the Father's will." Back to our sermon in the sentence, Jesus bore sin to forgive sinners. We find the first three words of that six-word sentence right here. John includes this account that Jesus has before Annas in order to highlight the kind of sin Jesus bore. Sin that is abusive, corrupt, unjust. Second page of your notes. Second individual. When we talk about a betrayer in the context of the New Testament, the first person that comes to your mind, maybe the only person that comes to your mind, is Judas, the son of Simon from Kiriath. We call him Judas Iscariot. Oh, indeed, he was a betrayer and he showed his colors like we knew he would. He stood with the unbelievers and stood against Jesus in the garden. We expected that. Not a surprise. This one, however, is a bit of a surprise. This betrayer's name is Peter. Verse 15 of our text, Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now, we read in Matthew's gospel, chapter 26, when Jesus is betrayed by Judas with that fateful kiss, Jesus, on two occasions, demands that they look at the subpoena and they say, or whatever piece of paper they had in front of them, that says, we have a warrant for his arrest. Jesus made sure, you're looking to arrest me and not my men. Is that correct? And that's what they affirmed. And as they arrested Jesus and bound him, the disciples scattered. They ran. But very quickly, there were two that came to follow to find out what was going to happen with Jesus. The Lutheran scholar Lenski commented, love drew them to follow, fear kept them at a distance. It was Peter and this other disciple simply referred to as another disciple. Who was that one? Who was the second one? Well, we are not sure. But it is my best guess, and I have a long list of people that I could name in support of this. I think this is none other than the Apostle John. Now, we know from a variety of places here in John's Gospel when he refers to himself, he often speaks of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. I think this is just another way for him to describe himself. He is simply another disciple. Now there's a lot of people, there are some, that would challenge that and say, well, we don't have any hard evidence that this is indeed John the son of Zebedee. Well, that is true that we don't have a very clear description somewhere else, maybe in the New Testament, that the other disciple is John, but it's really not that far-fetched to see that it could be John. I put these notations in front of you. In Mark chapter 1, we find out that John's dad, Zebedee, had his own fishing business. He didn't just have his sons, James and John, working for him. He had other men that he had hired. In other words, John came from some money. And it's not too far of a stretch to postulate that this John, a fisherman from Galilee, was connected by a single marriage to the high priest in Jerusalem. It's entirely possible. And it's John who gives us detail about what is transpiring, particularly with two men in the Sanhedrin. He appears to have intimate knowledge, insider knowledge, about Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, These two men that were on the Sanhedrin, he seems to have some insider knowledge that somebody that was related to the high priest, that came into the high priest's compound with regularity. I think this other disciple is John. Now, if it's not John, we don't know who it might have been. But let's just surmise for this period of time that it was. Simon Peter was following Jesus and so was another disciple, middle of verse 15. Now that disciple was known to the high priest and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest. So that the person who was at the gate recognized this other disciple, I'm going to say that it's John, recognized him and let him in now this was this was a secure facility you don't just let anybody in you have to have security clearance and John had that verse 15 I'm sorry verse 16 Peter was standing at the door outside Peter did not have that kind of clearance So, middle of verse 16, 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? You know what we don't have? We have the words of scripture, but we don't have the intonation. We rely so much on a person's intonation to discern, what do you really mean? Are you angry with me? Are you upset with me? Are you teasing me? Are you just being that way? We can't read into this girl's words exactly what she was meaning. Most people say that she was challenging Peter. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't you one of those disciples with that man, Jesus, that just walked through here a little bit ago? She may have been challenging him. I think she was teasing him. I think she was sticking him with a stick, poking him with a stick, saying, I know who you are. Think about it. If this is John. He would have been in the high priest compound and seen by the doorkeeper, this slave girl, repeatedly. She knew he was clear. She would have let him in. And as such, she would have known that he was a follower of Jesus. And so now John goes down and says to her on behalf of Peter, hey, he's with me. You can let him in. And she does. There is an element of trust between this doorkeeper and John. And so now there are two disciples of Jesus. She doesn't challenge John. She just challenges Jesus. I'm sorry, she just challenges Peter about Jesus. But is she challenging him at all? I think she's just poking at him. Hey, I know who you are. I know you're with Jesus, right? The manner in which she asks the question, let me say it differently. The words she uses in asking the question makes it very easy for Peter, who may not have been able to read her, She knew John, and John knew her, but Peter had no knowledge of this slave girl. She made it very easy for Peter to deny that he had anything to do with Jesus. You are not also one of the man's disciples, are you? It would have taken so much more energy. Peter didn't want to bring attention to himself. It would have taken so much more energy for him to say, oh, no, no, no, no, I actually am one of Jesus' followers, but you see, there was this incident in the garden, and no, he didn't want to go there. So he just said, no, no, I'm not the guy. My friends, the first lie is always the easiest. And following this, Peter felt like he had to keep walking down that path. Verse 18, 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. So at this point, all we've had is the slave girl, the doorkeeper, who has said, are you with this guy? I know who you are. And Peter said, no, no, no, yeah, you got the wrong guy. So he stands by the fire with these other people because it's cold outside. All right, then we have this incident with Jesus and his conversation with Annas. Story picks up in verse 25. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, you are not also one of his disciples, are you? Now the slave girl doorkeeper may have been poking Peter with a stick. She may have been teasing him, Joshua, playing with him. But the effect was it focused the eyes of attention on those other people that were standing around that fire on Peter. And as he stood there warming himself, the light from the embers of that fire illuminated his face. And the people standing around said, no, no, wait a minute. You are one of his guys. Middle of verse 25, he denied it and said, I'm not. You got the wrong guy. one of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off. Everybody knew what Peter did. He said, did I not see you in the garden with him? Now think about it. If your cousin gets attacked, by this big, strong, burly, old fisherman dude. And he tries to lop off your cousin's head. And then you find Jesus either picking up his ear or creating a whole new ear and reattaching it. You are never going to forget that scene. You're never going to forget the faces of the people that are there. And so here's this relative of Malchus. Remember, John, I think, was this other disciple who had inns with the high priest. He knew the names of the servants of the high priest. John's the only one who identifies the one whom Peter tried to kill as Malchus. He knew these people. And this relative challenges Peter, did I not see you in the garden with him? Then Peter denied it again. Now we know from the synoptics that Jesus predicted and indeed there were three denials by Peter. Well, you find one denial in verse 17 of our text. There are some that say, well, the second and the third denials are in verses 25 and 26. There are others who say, no, as you harmonize the accounts, verses 25 and 26 are the third denial. It's compacted together. There's one denial, there is the point of accusation, and then this relative who piggybacks on that observation and say, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, you are the guy, you were there. And then Peter denies it. So are there just two denials here, or are there three here? Well, to get mired in that debate is to miss the point. The point is to be found in Luke's gospel, chapter 22. Look with me at Luke 22, verse 60. Peter said, man, I do not know what you're talking about. Immediately while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. And the Lord, verse 61, turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had told him, before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times. And he went out and wept. rock, the one on whom Jesus said he would build his church. This one betrayed his Lord. This is the one who had that great confession of faith, Matthew 16. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, Yes, you're right, Peter. And on that confession of faith, I will build my church. You are the rock. And yet he betrayed his Lord. There's no evidence in John's gospel, he just doesn't mention it, that in the, with Jesus, I'm sorry, with Peter's second denial, he swore with an oath that he did not know Jesus. Matthew tells us with the third denial, Peter was cursing and swearing He went back to his old, crusty, fisherman vocabulary. And he said he denied categorically, with all kinds of foul stuff coming out of his mouth, that he knew nothing of Jesus. Nothing of Jesus? Peter, aren't you the one that said just hours before, I will go, I will die with you. How easy it is for us to find ourselves in a similar situation. Maybe because we are discouraged, maybe because we are alone. Maybe because we are in a state of doubting all that we thought was true, we find ourselves denying our Lord, confessing Him to be the Lord, and then cursing Him. My sermon in a sentence. Jesus bore sin to forgive sinners. Peter lied, tried to cover up his lie. He denounced his Lord, brought shame to the name of Christ, We won't take time now, we will get there in our study of John's gospel, but we will find Peter later restored and forgiven by our Lord. This is the message that we need to hear. Because by our actions, by our words, sometimes we betray our Lord. and we walk in the footsteps of Peter to our shame. We draw a couple things together by way of conclusion. When we come to the Lord's table that was enacted on that fateful night, The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all record those words where Jesus instituted his supper and how we are to commemorate it. There is a fourth testimony to those words of institution. And they are found in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. This happened to be the first recording of these words. And if you want to turn with me to 1 Corinthians 11, verse 23. For I received from the Lord, the Apostle Paul writes, that which I also delivered to you. That the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he broke bread with his disciples, took bread. Is that how your Bible reads? No, it's not. Try this one. On the night in which he broke bread, Jesus was arrested. and took bread. Is that how you read? No. Try this one. On the night before he was crucified, Jesus took bread. Is that how you read? No. What does it read? Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, Betrayed by Judas? Yeah. But by who else? There is forgiveness. There is restoration. Only in Jesus, the one we have offended. In 1791, at the age of 35, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was conscripted by his patron, Count von Walzig, to write a requiem. A requiem is a funeral mass. He was conscripted to write a requiem for his beloved wife who had died. Mozart himself unexpectedly died that same year before he finished his requiem in D minor. But he was far enough in the process, it was finished by a student of his, he was far enough in the process that I bring to your mind some of the lyrics of that Requiem. Mozart wrote, remember, merciful Jesu, that I am the cause of your journey. Jesus came seeking, saving sinners. Sinners who are unjust and corrupt and abusive. And those who are betrayers. Indeed, all kinds of sinners. He bore all sin, all kinds of sin, to forgive sinners who come humbly, submissively unto the Lord, seeking, begging for that forgiveness. I hope you're on that list. Blessed Father, what a privilege it is for us to look into Scripture and to see your perfect righteousness meted out in Christ. The perfect man offering self as a perfect sacrifice to forgive wretched sinners who repent of their sin and come humbly, submissively into the presence of the Savior, looking for that which we cannot obtain ourselves, namely, forgiveness. Find us as a group of people and as individuals in that group who are repentant, submissive, seeking your forgiveness. We welcome it and embrace it. In the name of the Savior, we pray.