And again, let's stand for the reading of God's Word. And it's John 18, verse 12. We'll read 12 to 24. And let us hear the Word of the Lord. Then the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound Him. and led him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. And Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Now Simon Peter followed Jesus and another disciple, and that disciple was known to the high priest, therefore he went in with Jesus into the hall of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out the other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake to her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then said the maid that kept the door unto Peter, Are not thou also one of this man's disciples? He said, I am not. And the servants and officers stood there, which had made a fire of coals, for it was cold, and they warmed themselves. Peter also stood among them and warmed himself. The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews resort continually. And in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me what I said unto them. Behold, they know what I said. When he had spoken these things, one of the officers which stood by smote Jesus with his rod, saying, answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, if I have evil spoken, bear witness of the evil. But if I have well spoken, why smitest thou me? Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest. And that ends the reading of God's word. Let's pray. Father, be with us here as we examine these things and teach us, we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Please be seated. Well, we looked at Peter's betrayal last week, and so we've dealt with that. Of course, you know these things are interwoven in the section we're dealing with. So we go from Jesus to Peter to Jesus to Peter, and back and forth. So I want to draw a straight line through it on Peter's circumstances. Now we'll do the same thing with this arrest and interrogation of Jesus. And there are a number of issues here with which to deal, in that it seems unclear upon examination who is interrogating Jesus. So verse 13, they led him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. And he was led away to Annas. In identifying Annas, the verse mentions Caiaphas was the high priest. Okay, well then in verse 19, the high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine, and so it seems that the high priest is the one doing the questioning. And then verse 24 notes, now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. And that comes later, and in this, both the King James Version and the 1599 Geneva Bible read had sent as a past tense statement. The received text reads literally, and again now, sent him Annas bound to Caiaphas the high priest. That's the literal Greek in order. So to make matters worse, there's a textual variant here at this Greek at this section of the Greek that inserts the word un, which would indicate time, sent then him bound, sent then him bound. And so that variant, which is not in the received text, which is in a critical text, but according to certain commentators has good textual evidence, they want to bring in, sent them him bound. So that makes matters worse. Of course, that would go the other direction. Again, 24 Annas had sent him bound, then we would read, then sent, then Annas sent him bound, you know, then, meaning the time when he was sent would be at verse 24 after the interrogation. So that makes matters worse. And it is Hendrickson that raises this issue in his commentary, and what he does to solve it is to defer to the critical text, which is taking the easy way out. And I agree with his conclusion, but I don't agree with his method. So I can't get there that way. Okay, so that's the problem that we face. So one thing we should keep in mind here is that John is adding material. That's what John's gospel is like. Okay, his gospel is the work of the man who was closest to Jesus. He is that disciple known to the high priest, the disciple that lay in Jesus' bosom at the table, the disciple who Jesus said, what is it to you if he tarry till I come? That's John. And so we ought to keep that in mind. And John is adding material. He's writing a gospel later than the other gospel writers, and he's not so much as recapitulating the other Gospel writers as adding material that is close, that's on the inside story and the things that have been left out. And of course he writes with a particular goal, and that's defending the Incarnation against the doctrine of Antichrist. And so men are denying, they're saying, well, Jesus was a good man and the spirit of God came upon him. John's defending his identity. He's the son of God that's begotten before all worlds, God of God. And he's the son of man who took upon himself human flesh and came into human history to die an atoning sacrifice. So John is defending the doctrine of the incarnation. which was a battle that took more than five centuries, but it was raging for five centuries in the Christian church. And we recite the Athanasian Creed today because of this attack. But in comparing John's account with the other gospel writers, there is an evident difference. And let's focus here for a minute, verse 19, The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine. Okay, now let's look at Matthew 26, beginning at verse 57. So there is the one point of interrogation in John, now 26, beginning at 57. And they took Jesus and led him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. And Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest hall and went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Now the chief priests and the elders and the whole council sought false witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. And though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. But at the last came two false witnesses and said, this man said, I can destroy the temple of God and build it in three days. Then the chief priest arose and said to him, answerest thou nothing? What is the matter that these men witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. Now that's the interrogation, and that interrogation, as it's related in Matthew, agrees with Mark and Luther. Essentially, that's representative of the other three Gospels. So, again, unlike the questioning of Jesus in John 18 and verse 19, Here there are witnesses in this text, and this is done before the assembled, it's the high priest with the assembled Sanhedrin. The whole council is there, they've brought them together to be involved in this interrogation. Of course, and then they will interpret Jesus as blaspheming at verse 65 here, and so condemn him to death. But the interrogation in our text was before Annas, and that seems even clearer when you set verse 13, and he led him away to Annas first, when you set that over and against Luke 3, verses 1 to 2. Now in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip Tetrarch of Iteria, and of the country of Trachonitis and Licinius, the Tetrarch of Abilene, when Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests, the word of God came unto John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness. Now you notice Annas and Caiaphas were the high priest. Annas was the high priest like Caiaphas was the high priest. Well, we're told Caiaphas, we're told by John, Caiaphas was the high priest that same year. But it means that Annas and Caiaphas traded off oftentimes being high priest. And whether it was an annual appointment or how that actually worked, doesn't really make a lot of difference. The point is, when we read in our text, the high priest asked him of his disciples and of his doctrine, that could be either one. That could be Caiaphas, that could be Annas, but in the flow of the text, it appears evident that this is Annas. This is an arraignment before Annas. And again, it's a common thing in our day, down to our day, to address a former officer by his title even when he's not in office. And so if there was to be a debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it would be Vice President Biden who would be addressed. And they would address him by his title in that debate. And again, because he held that office once, he is addressed by that title even when he's not actually serving in that capacity. That is still evident today in virtually every political campaign and virtually every interview that's done by the news media with former office holders. So again, to address Annas as the high priest and say the high priest asked him, you know, is not anything that's out of any normal convention. And so I take it simply that this was a preliminary interview by Annas that was made before Jesus came into the council, which would ultimately condemn him. In other words, I take it that they led him to Annas first, and the high priest asked him of his disciples and of his doctrine. Annas had been high priest. He was still called by that title. In fact, you know, in Luke's Gospel, it's Annas and Caiaphas, even though one alone served in the office in any particular year. I think that's enough basically to say that that's the situation. Now, in 24, as I said, really the authorized version and the 1599 Geneva are doing the interpretation. They sense a problem here, saying he was led to Annas first, then the high priest asked him, when John himself defines Caiaphas as serving as the high priest that year, they sense the tension that that creates, and in translating the language of the Greek here, Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas, they propose to solve the problem. And as I said to you, the actual words are, sent him Annas, bound to Caiaphas the high priest. And that doesn't necessarily involve any particular timing. And so they've solved it, but I think it's not exactly what happened, the way it's read here. Except that you can take that same thing in reference to Peter in verse 25. So even if it was, even if we could say it was legitimate to insert un here, you could make verse 24 refer to verse 25 and it doesn't really identify who the interview is being done before. So even with Un, I don't think you can say that there's anything wrong with the text, that it's anyone other than Annas who is interrogating Jesus. Okay, that's my solution to the text. That's my solution to the problems raised by the commentators here, raised by Hendrickson at least, and it's more contemporary in our day to question these things. Okay, it's very simply, again, that this is a preliminary examination, an interview by Annas, which was made before Jesus came into the council, which would ultimately condemn him. Now, this interrogation, so this is the kind of thing we have. We have a prisoner. Now, he's already bound. The Roman officers have bound him. He is a prisoner. And so it's in an official capacity that these questions are being asked, even if it seems, well, he's not actually in the council being questioned. This is Annas who's related to the high priest, but it's sort of a private interview. And even if it seems non-confrontational or even friendly, in other words, I mean, think about being bound and then being brought to Annas, and he's an old man, and he's He's kindly and he's friendly with you, and he says, well, you know, tell me about your disciples and tell me about your doctrine. And it all seems non-confrontational. It all seems like he's objective and he's sincerely interested in Jesus' good, if you can get this sense out of it. I mean, Annas can seem non-confrontational or even friendly, even while he's trying to collect further evidence to put Jesus' trial on a better standing. And again, it's evident from the other gospel accounts, the one we read in Matthew, for example, that the council sought witnesses. So get the situation here. We have this guy that we've decided to arrest and put to death, and John's telling us Caiaphas was the one that says, expedient that one die. They intend to put him to death. They're arresting him and they intend to kill him, but they don't have any evidence against him. They're looking for witnesses. And it's in that context that Jesus is brought to friendly old Anna's, you know, oh, you know, yeah, I feel for you, you know, tell me about your disciples and tell me about your doctrine, you know. And what's he looking for? He's the father-in-law to the one that says we need to kill him. What's he looking for? Information. He's looking to get information on Jesus that he can use, that can be used against him then in the trial. And again, since it's evident that the counsel sought witnesses, I think we ought to interpret the preliminary examination of Annas of Jesus, by Annas of Jesus, as seeking information, seeking to build a case. So you really, I mean, you really have to appreciate the nature of these things and this method of operation in order to see this in the text. I mean, this is a method that has been around for centuries. We have a suspect, quote unquote, that we want to hang the charges upon. We arrest that subject not upon sufficient evidence. but in order to gain evidence. You see, arresting a suspect scares him, and he wants to explain and justify his actions. And you can get him to talk this way, and you can get him to tell you everything you ask, even while you are building your case from what he says. And so you didn't have a case. before, he's giving you one by answering your questions. And you're taking the questions, and you're examining him in such a way as to build a case and to do it without really letting on that that's what you're doing to him. And the more seemingly, the more friendly you act, the more understanding. Your interrogator, you will find, is always a sweet and very understanding person. If it's a woman, it'll be another woman doing the questioning. Or, you know, an old man works really good, seems cordial and has experience and he lives into the situation. But the more seeming the guy is, the more friendly he is, the more you want to sing. But it lures you into... It lures you into giving more information. And that's the goal of this kind of an interrogation. The friendlier the interrogator is, the more the suspect, the more the one who has been arrested, wants to sing. Now, there's a trial attorney in town that put up billboards recently. Have you seen these billboards? The message is really quite practical. It says, you have the right to remain silent. Now, shut up. Am I the only one that's seen this? OK, there's others. You've seen the billboards in town. That's a trial attorney. And he's telling his criminal clientele exactly how the system works. He said, you have the right to remain silent. Shut up. They're building a case for what you say. And you have the right to remain silent, so shut up, don't say anything. And that's what the trial attorney is practically telling his criminal clientele, or the ones who are arrested, who are going through this same process as Jesus is going through right here with Annas. Now, the innocent man is in the same predicament with corrupt officers. See, if the goal of an investigation is not truth and justice, they had already decided to put him to death, so the goal of asking any questions is not truth and justice. If the goal is to build a case to convict an innocent man, to put to death an innocent man anyway, then you can see how the situation goes. When the goal is not truth and justice, then the procedures are designed to incriminate and to destroy. And this is what Jesus was facing with his friendly interview with Annas. And so, you know, you know how you read it in the news stories of our day. These news stories will talk about this guy and he was arrested, and he's cooperating with the police. That means he's singing. He's talking. He's talking to them and answering all their questions, you know. Even if he's lying, that's cooperation because they'll prove the lies and then they got him, you know, so that's cooperation. On the other hand, horror of horrors, he's not cooperating. That means he's not answering their questions. And he's to be scorned for that. He's not answering their questions. That means he's not cooperating. What do you mean cooperate? You realize there's nothing else to do to cooperate but to answer their questions. You're in prison. You're in handcuffs. You're in a cage. Cooperating is answering questions, talking. That's what they want. And that's what they aim at. And that's what this interview with Annis aimed at. Now, as an aside to this, the modern system makes ridiculous charges against men. And again, this is more of the same kinds of things. A guy does a single act and they charge him with 32 counts of some thing. Way overblown. But bearing penalties of death and two lifetimes in prison. And then the court-appointed attorney comes in to sit down and talk to his client, looking very scared for his client, and saying, look, man, you need a deal here. I mean, this is death, and this is two lifetimes in prison, and any of these charges that stick, you're really going to be bad. Maybe I can work out some lesser charge for you that you can plead guilty to. And if you'll take that bait, you're scared, you take the bait, even if you've done nothing, that's how men are manipulated by fear into incriminating themselves. And the tyrants know this, and even when they have no case, that's what they do to their prisoner. So when a man of principle says, no, I am not going to plead guilty when I have done nothing, he exposes himself to the potential of penalties based on false charges. But oftentimes, the case evaporates. That's because there's nothing in the first place. And it proceeds only when you're a political enemy and hated, and they have reason to proceed against you. They need something. And then they have to manipulate the evidence in order to create a case. But you've got to see that this is the legal process of tyrants, and this is how it works. So how it works is we scare you, and you incriminate yourself. or we scare you and you plead guilty to something you didn't do in order that the threat is mitigated, in order that you don't get 10 lifetimes in prison or two lifetimes in prison or death or whatever else we're threatening you with, with the 32 charges that we've charged you on, 32 counts on the one thing that you did. So that's how the whole system works among tyrants. And I think that's what we're dealing with here. You've got to see Annas, kindly old man, calmly talking to Jesus. Tell me about your disciples. Tell me about them. I really want to know what it is you teach. Now, he's the father-in-law, the one that said, let's put him to death. But he's doing his part in interrogation to try to build a case. And in order to try to build a case, he's being friendly. and acting like he has an open mind and he really wants to know. And so, our Lord's answer in verse 20-21 appears then, if you've got the circumstance downright, what our Lord said in 20-21 appears in its glory. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews resort continually. And in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me what I said unto them. Behold, they know what I said." See, Jesus knows well the hearts of men and the procedures of the wicked. And he will not fall for this. He will not help them in their unjust quest. And you could put it in a vernacular. You boys have me in handcuffs. Now surely you have a case. Bring your witnesses. You've got me cuffed, so surely you know something. Don't think I'm going to give you the information. Bring it forward. Try me. Don't ask me now for evidence you need to make charges. If I'm in cuffs already, don't ask me for the evidence. You must know. You must have your evidence already. Now, the approach continues, this approach of Jesus in dealing with the Jewish leaders continues all the way through the trial before the council up to Matthew 26 and verse 63. Then the chief priest arose and said to him, answerest thou nothing? What is the matter that these men witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace." Jesus didn't give them anything. Jesus wouldn't talk to them. I'm in custody, you've got the witnesses, bring them forward. And the witnesses couldn't agree, he didn't need to say anything. So this is how Jesus deals with this particular situation. He said nothing that could be construed as incriminating evidence. They still had no case. And so again, whether it's his arrest and bringing him to Annas, and Annas is that friendly questioner that lives into the situation and makes him puts him at ease and acts like an old man who's really interested, and maybe he could help him in this situation. Jesus says nothing to him. He said, look, I spoke openly. Ask them. They know what I said. Or whether it's in the council with all the false witnesses. The witnesses don't agree. They don't have two witnesses. They can't convict him. He doesn't say anything. It's not until the failure of their case that Jesus incriminates himself. on the basis of the statement that the high priest Caiaphas then says. But again, they still had no case, and that was Jesus' approach to dealing with these people. Now the application of this, I think, operates on two fronts. The trial attorney's billboard advice is well-constructed. Shut up. If you ever find yourself in the position of being arrested, And of course, they mean it for those that are actually guilty. I mean it for, I'm not assuming anybody's guilty. I don't think guilt is necessary here, but the simple thing is make the officers prove their case. It's their job. Do it without me. It's in my interest to speak with my attorney alone. Get your own attorney, by the way. Okay? Because a court-appointed attorney is an officer of the court. He's part of the same system that is now attacking you. Okay? So recognize, look, you know, if you get arrested for child abuse because you're homeschooling your children or you won't give them vaccines or something like that, don't argue the point with officers of the court. You know, you can think of, make up in our day today, or conceive of in the future, all kinds of reasons to be attacked by these tyrants who are trying to force an agenda, particularly to force an agenda upon Christians. And the point is, you don't talk. You don't explain yourself. Get your own attorney, not a court-appointed attorney. Get your own attorney. and make sure he's good. And you talk with him, but not with them. And again, we can draw that as the procedure from Jesus' example here with Annas and before the council. All right, second point of application is a point violated increasingly by men today But there is a right of privacy that was recognized constitutionally in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Well, our constitutional framers were quite familiar with these tactics of tyrannical governments, and if we're seeing it here with respect to Jesus, you can believe it had a life of its own for the next 2,000 years or for the next 1,800 years or 1,700 years, however you want to designate it. It didn't go away. in the New Testament time. So our constitutional framers understood this thing. If the charges are false and trumped up, then the evidence to convict on those charges involves what is otherwise innocent. Now let that sink in, okay? Because you hear people say, well, I don't have anything to hide. What you have to hide is your information. All your information. Because if the charges are false, the evidence to convict is also false. And what they need is information. They don't need truth. They just need enough information to hang you. So the idea that a man's effects can be searched to build a case was repugnant to the constitutional framers. You don't get to do what they did here, arrest a man you hate, and then search everything he has and build a case against him. That's what's going on here with Jesus. But you don't get to do that when you consult the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution of 1789. And now this involves a technological capacity to mine every individual on the planet. And this generation of individuals is not jealous of their privacy. They trustingly give over all of their effects. to a government that has murdered 50,000, 50 million innocent children, to a government promoting all sorts of perversion, to officers engaged in satanic ritual, it doesn't get worse than what we have in the government of our nation, Tennessee, and the Federal Republic, the United States. It doesn't get any worse. And yet, men are trustingly giving over all their effects to these officers. And you say, well, the only one that can see my Facebook page are my friends, quote unquote, my friends. Your friends and Facebook, the very people designing your enslavement, the apples, the alphabets, PDF on the cloud, are all designing your enslavement. and you will know it in that day. And my point to you is you testify against yourself when you use their platforms. By not protecting yourself, by not protecting your information and your family, you will suffer. And I'm afraid you can't be told that. It's too much fun to see yourself in the world to see yourself to the world. Hey, look at me. Jesus said in Matthew 13 verse 9, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Let's pray. Father, we do pray that you would give us wisdom and intelligence to understand what's going on here with our Lord, how it is men who design His hurt, who have no case, who are attempting to build a case through these tactics and make us wise to this thing, make us perceptive and able to recognize the same thing in our own generation, to recognize who they target and what they want to accomplish and how that affects us. and make us wise and capable not to give ourselves into their hands. And use the lesson we have here in this text to teach us, we pray, in Jesus' name, amen.