Lucas 22
William Barclay · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 22
Barclay writes that "From the altar there was a channel down to the brook Kedron, and through that channel the blood of the Passover lambs drained away. When Jesus crossed the brook Kedron it would still be red with the blood of the lambs which had been sacrificed.”
Lucas 22
Barclay - Jesus despatched Peter and John. "Go," he said, "and make ready the Passover for us that we may eat it." And Jesus sent Peter and John Mark 14:13-16 Go and prepare the Passover Luke 1:6; Mt 3:15; Galatians 4:4,5 Luke 22 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Alfred Edersheim - Make Ready the Passover THE PASSOVER PREPARED Parallel Passages Matthew 26:18 And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.” Mark 14:13+ And He sent two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him And Jesus sent Peter and John - Only Luke gives the names of the two disciples (who were also present at His transfiguration). As the book of Acts indicates Peter and John became leaders of the Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1-3, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14). Go and prepare (hetoimazo) the Passover (pascha) for us, so that we may eat it - What is fascinating is the fact that while the disciples are preparing for the Passover feast, God Himself is orchestrating events to prepare His Passover Lamb of God. How? Through the murderous thoughts of the Jewish religious leaders, the interaction of Satan and the betrayal of Judas by word and deed. In short, while they prepare the Passover for Jesus, God is preparing Jesus for them and for all who trust in Him (cf Acts 2:23+). As John wrote "“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) Paul looking backwards concurs writing "Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." (1 Cor 5:7). Of course a major part of the preparation was to procure a blemish free lamb which most likely would have been done on Monday, the 10th of Nisan (cf Ex 12:2, 5, 6), for that was the day on which the lamb was to be inspected for blemishes. Then on the day they were to celebrate the Passover meal, they would have to take the lamb to the Temple to be inspected and sacrificed by the priests. Only two men were allowed to bring the lamb (thus Peter and John) because otherwise the courtyard would have become much too crowded given the thousands of lambs that needed to be sacrificed in the small window of time which had been prescribed. According to Josephus the lambs had to be sacrificed between the 9th and the 11th hour which would be from 3 PM to 5 PM (As an aside, just imagine this bloody scene in the Temple with the blood of 1000's of lambs being spilled, and yet even then not being able "to take away sins"-cf Heb 10:4+) . The 12th hour would have been sunset after which the Passover would commence. So Peter and John would have to return to the upper room and roast the lamb. In addition they would have to procure the other elements for the feast (click for elements necessary for the Passover Seder). Thus, presumably they would have gone out to purchase the wine, etc, but none of the Gospel accounts give details. In any event, this was clearly no small task given the crowds in the city and the small window of time. Recall that the city was so crowded because the Passover could only be celebrated within the city limits. While the text does not say, another possibility is that when Peter and John arrived at the furnished room, it was not only furnished with pillows, carpets and table for the meal, but even the necessary ingredients for the meal. Clearly, it was all accomplished in time for God was in total control of this monumental last Passover. All of this preparation and procurement of multiple necessities makes me think of Php 4:19 "And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus." Do you really believe that declaration? Prepare (2090)(hetoimazo from heteos = fitness - see study of related word hetoimasia) means to make ready, specifically to make ready beforehand for some purpose, use, or activity. Put or keep in readiness, prepare Mt 22:4; 25:34, 41; Mk 1:3; Lk 22:13; Jn14:2f; Rev 9:7; 21:2; make preparations Lk 9:52. Friberg - prepare, make ready; (1) with a thing as the object put or keep in readiness, prepare (Mt 26.19); (2) with a person as the object make ready, prepare (Lk 1.17); (3) of what God provides for believers prepare, have ready (1Co 2.9) (Borrow Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament) This verb is used 4x in this section - Lk 22:8, 9, 12, 13. All 40 uses - Matt. 3:3; Matt. 20:23; Matt. 22:4; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 25:41; Matt. 26:17; Matt. 26:19; Mk. 1:3; Mk. 10:40; Mk. 14:12; Mk. 14:15; Mk. 14:16; Lk. 1:17; Lk. 1:76; Lk. 2:31; Lk. 3:4; Lk. 9:52; Lk. 12:20; Lk. 12:47; Lk. 17:8; Lk. 22:8; Lk. 22:9; Lk. 22:12; Lk. 22:13; Lk. 23:56; Lk. 24:1; Jn. 14:2; Jn. 14:3; Acts 23:23; 1 Co. 2:9; 2 Tim. 2:21; Phile. 1:22; Heb. 11:16; Rev. 8:6; Rev. 9:7; Rev. 9:15; Rev. 12:6; Rev. 16:12; Rev. 19:7; Rev. 21:2 Passover (3957)(pascha)refers to the meal during which the roasted lamb was eaten as part of the Passover Seder. Bock - "Their tasks are to secure a room, get the lamb slain at the temple, pick up bitter herbs, purchase the unleavened bread, and obtain wine for the meal....The future leaders of the apostolic group are here learning to serve." J Ligon Duncan adds "J.I. Packer was asked a few years ago, “Dr. Packer, could you summarize the New Testament in three words?” And he said, “Yes.” You’re not surprised, are you? “Yes,” he said, “Adoption through propitiation.” He said, “We are forgiven and welcomed as children into God's family through the propitiation of Jesus Christ” - through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who is our what? Our Passover Lamb." (Sermon) Duncan goes on to read a sermon ("Peri Pascha - On the Passover" - here is the text of the sermon - scroll to bottom for quote below) from Melito of Sardis preached in the second century (AD) “’I am the One,’ says the Christ, ‘I am the One that destroyed death and triumphed over the enemy and tried down hell and found the strong one and carried off man to the heights of heaven. I am the One,’ says the Christ. Come then, all you families of men who are compounded with sins and get forgiveness of sins from Me, for I am your forgiveness. I am the pascha of salvation. I am the lamb slain for you. I am your ransom. I am you life. I am your light. I am your salvation. I am your resurrection. I am your king. I will raise you up by my right hand. I am leading you up to the heights of heaven. There I will show you the Father from ages past. It is He who made the heaven and the earth and fashioned man in the beginning, who is proclaimed through the Law and the prophets, who was enfleshed upon a virgin, who hung upon a tree, who was buried in the earth and raised from the dead and went up to the heights of heaven, who sits at the Father's right hand, who has the power to save every man through whom the Father did His works from beginning to eternity. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the beginning and the end, beginning inexpressible and end incomprehensible. He is the Christ. He is the King. He is Jesus. He is the captain. He is the Lord. He is the One who rose from the dead. He is the One who sits at the Father's right hand. He carries the Father and is carried by the Father. To Him be the glory and power forever. Amen.’” It is interesting to note that the events preceding the Triumphal Entry parallel the events surrounding the preparation for the Last Supper. (1) In both Jesus commissioned two disciples (Lk 19:29), (2) In both Jesus had foreknowledge of what they would encounter (Lk 19:30-31). (3) In both the response of those encountered by the two disciples is similar (See Lk 19:32-34 cf Lk 22:11-12). In summary, in both situations, all was exactly as Jesus had said it would be. Beloved, that is always the case. Every promise Jesus makes to us is true and trustworthy. And "all of God's promises have been fulfilled in Him. That is why we say "Amen" when we give glory to God through Christ." (2 Cor 1:20) Jewish commentator Arnold Fruchtenbaum gives a few other details involved in the preparation of the Passover lamb: 1. The disciples had to go with a lamb to the Temple compound where the lamb would be checked to make sure that it was without spot or blemish. 2. The lamb would be killed at the Temple compound. 3. The blood would be poured into a bowl. 4. At the Temple there would be three long lines of Levites who would pass the bowls from one to another down the lines until it got to the altar, and the blood would be poured out at the base of the altar. This took place from 3 pm to 5 pm. 5. The lamb would be skinned and have it’s entrails removed. 6. Parts of the lamb would be left for the priests, who would bring it upon the altar. 7. The rest of the lamb would be taken home to be roasted for the Passover meal. Kent
Lucas 22
Barclay - When a disciple met a beloved Rabbi, he laid his right hand on the Rabbi’s left shoulder and his left hand on the right shoulder and kissed him. It was the kiss of a disciple to a beloved master that Judas used as a sign of betrayal. C H
Lucas 22
Barclay comments that “Had Jesus not healed Malchus, Peter would have been arrested as well; and there might have been four crosses at Calvary.”
Lucas 22
Barclay - There is a passage in the Talmud which says: ‘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." Annas and his household were notorious. See also transcript on John 18:12–27 from John MacArthur's sermon Jesus’ Unjust Trial, Peter’s Shameful Denial For more in depth treatment of Jesus' Examination before Annas see Septimus Buss' excellent 1906 book The Trial of Jesus. Here is an excerpt... Midnight had arrived before the Roman troops and the servants of the chief priests officered by the tribune (chiliarchos), had climbed the steep path up the Temple hill in the bright light of the Paschal moon: and, when at this late hour the gate of the sleeping city closed behind them, the streets were deserted and silent. The captors hastily made their way to the palace of the high priest, and delivered their Prisoner into the custody of Annas. Annas was at this time the most striking personality in Palestine. For more than half a century he was at the head of ecclesiastical affairs in Jerusalem, either as actual high priest, or as holding the reins of power through members of his family. Josephus (Antiquities xx. Chap 9.1) speaks of him as “a most fortunate man,” having enjoyed the pontificate a long time himself, and being succeeded in that dignity by five of his sons, as well as by his son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas. He was a Sadducee, careless of religious obligations and actuated by Epicurean ideas of the importance of utilizing to the utmost the delights of this present world. His lax religious views enabled him to keep on friendly terms with the Roman authorities, while at the same time feeling that he could hold in check that tendency to revolt which always inflamed the minds of the Jewish zealots, especially those of Galilee. His immense wealth contributed to the success of his ambitious schemes. Large revenues were derived from the sale of the various articles required for the sacrifices and offerings in the Temple, for which purpose booths had been established on the Mount of Olives, and even under the porticoes of the Temple itself. (Click to continue reading) The purpose of Jesus' first "trial" was an attempt by Annas to arrive at a formal accusation against Jesus for a serious crime which would warrant the Roman's bringing the death penalty. Recall that normally an indictment is is filed after the conclusion of a grand jury investigation, so in essence Annas was functioning as the grand jury! In so doing Annas was violating several Sanhedrin laws -- First, the law forbade any trials before the morning sacrifice and Jesus' appearance before Annas was probably shortly after midnight and certainly before 3 AM because cock crowing normally began about that time and had not yet occurred (cf Mt 26:74). Secondly, trials were only to be public with no secret trials, including no trials in private homes. In his attempt to get an accusation against Jesus Annas questioned Him on who His disciples were and what were His teachings. In reply Jesus challenged Annas to keep the Jewish law which said they were to produce the charge and not to seek a charge by interrogating the accused. When Jesus demanded they adhere to their own laws, He was given a blow. So here begins the first of several mistreatments (not even counting His being bound like a criminal (Jn 18:12). This first religious trial was short and ended in failure for Annas came up with no specific charge by which Jesus could be tried in a Sanhedrin court of law. (2) The Second Mock Trial: Before Caiaphas For context note that all three denials by Peter occur during trial number two, while Peter was in the court of the high priest Caiaphas. Peter and John had followed the mob who took Jesus into the residence of Caiaphas. John had access to the courtyard of the high priest because of a relationship (? what kind). John was known unto the servants of the high priest, and John used his influence to get Peter into the courtyard of the compound. This sets the stage for Peter’s testing, resulting in three denials of increasing vehemence. Peter's three denials will be discussed below in Lk 22:55-62. Caiaphas, Annas’ son-in law served as high priest from A.D. 25–36. According to Luke 22:54, the second religious trial was held in Caiaphas’ home. Caiaphas, like Annas, violated the law which said that Sanhedrin trials could only be held in the Hall of Judgment of the Temple Compound and not in the privacy of one’s home (in public, not in secret). Wikipedia adds "In the Second Temple period, the Great Sanhedrin met in the Hall of Hewn Stones (SEE PICTURE) in the Temple in Jerusalem. The court convened every day except festivals (ED: WHICH WAS ANOTHER ILLEGALITY OF THE CURRENT COURT AS IT WAS PASSOVER!) and the Sabbath day (Shabbat)." While the examination by Annas was proceeding, the members of the Sanhedrin were hastily being gathered together from the various districts of the city to the house of Caiaphas, not the Hall of Hewn Stones. Recall that it is the middle of the night, now probably after 1 AM. Mt 26:57 tells us "the scribes and the elders were gathered together" and Mk 14:53 adds "all the chief priests," who together constituted the Sanhedrin which normally had 71 men (24 chief priests, 24 elders, 22 scribes and the High priest ). The Sanhedrin had to have a minimum of 23. It is unlikely that all 71 were present, for Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea were almost certainly not present to condemn Jesus (Jn 19:38–42). In the passages below note that the religious leaders were seeking witnesses, which was illegal for the defense had the right to bring witnesses before the accusers brought witnesses. In Matthew's account we see that the two witnesses could not agree on whether Jesus actually said that He would destroy the Temple (Mk 14:58) or whether He simply claimed to have the power to do so (Mt 26:61) and thus they had to be dismissed, invalidating their testimony. And once again the Sanhedrin violated the law, because, the trial was to proceed only if two witnesses agreed in every detail. Caiaphas was frustrated and stood up (for greater solemnity) to challenged Jesus “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” (Mt 26:62, Mk 14:60) To demand for Jesus to testify against Himself violated another aspect of their own law! Jesus however stuck to His rights as a defendant and refused to answer. Caiphas then placed Jesus under a solemn oath declaring "I adjure (exorkizo) You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ (THE MESSIAH), the Son of God." (Mt 26:63) This shows tha tCaiaphas clearly knew who Jesus claimed to be and he also knew the Messiah would be the Son of God. Jesus answered definitively “I am (ego eimi) (In Mark's version); and you shall see THE SON OF MAN (from Da 7:13+) SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER (from Ps 110:1), and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN (from Da 7:13+).” (Mk 14:62, cf Mt 26:64) Not only did Jesus use the famous "ego eimi" but He also used the phrase "Son of Man" which was the accepted title among the Jews for the Messiah. Notice also that Jesus predicts a reversal of the tables, for in that future day Jesus, the Great High Priest, will be Caiaphas' Judge! Mark 14:53-65+ They led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together. 54 Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers (huperetes) and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council (sunedrion = Sanhedrin, the Jewish "Supreme Court"; see also What was the Sanhedrin?) kept trying to obtain testimony (LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE) against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. 56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. 57 Some (TWO FALSE WITNESSES IN Mt 26:60) stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. 60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him (ED: APPARENTLY CAIAPHAS HAD PLACED HIM UNDER SACRED OATH RECORDED BY MATTHEW - Mt 26:63), and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am (ego eimi); and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest *said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 “You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all ("ALL" THAT WERE PRESENT - JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA MUST NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT [SEE Lk 23:51]. IT IS ALSO DOUBTFUL IF NICODEMUS [Jn 7:50, 51, 52] WAS PRESENT) condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 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. Comment on RIGHT HAND OF POWER - POWER is a circumlocution referring to God. Such indirect references to God were common in first century Judaism out of reverence for God's Name Yahweh. And since Jesus sits at the right hand of power, the exalted position, these Jewish "judges" would see "here come da' Judge!" They were deluded into thinking they were Jesus' judges, when in fact the reverse would prove true! Comment on Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent (Mk 14:59, cf Mt 26:60) - Why were they not "consistent"? “I will destroy” (Mk 14:58) is a statement of intent, and “I am able to destroy” (Mt 26:61) is a statement of ability. Under Roman Law a threat against the Temple would result in a capital offense, which is why the Sanhedrin are trying to massage what Jesus said into being a threat, but their two witnesses were not consistent and by law Jesus should have been released (another miscarriage of justice!). Matthew 26:57-68 Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58 But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’” (cf Jn 2:19 = He was referring to His body, NOT the Jewish Temple.) 62 The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” 67 Then they (SANHEDRIN MEMBERS) spat in His face (FULFILLING PROPHECY - Isa 50:6) and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?” Comment: Note that Jesus was silent until Caiaphas placed Him under a sacred oath ("I adjure You"), at which time Jesus had to answer truthfully (of course He ALWAYS answered truthfully!). A T Robertson on "He has blasphemed!" - There was no need of witnesses now, for Jesus had incriminated himself by claiming under oath to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Now it would not be blasphemy for the real Messiah to make such a claim, but it was intolerable to admit that Jesus could be the Messiah of Jewish hope. At the beginning of Christ's ministry he occasionally used the word Messiah of himself, but he soon ceased, for it was plain that it would create trouble. The people would take it in the sense of a political revolutionist who would throw off the Roman yoke. If he declined that role, the Pharisees would have none of him for that was the kind of a Messiah that they desired. But the hour has now come. At the Triumphal Entry Jesus let the Galilean crowds hail him as Messiah, knowing what the effect would be (Mt 21:9, Mk 11:9, 10, Jn 12:13-15). Now the hour has struck (cf Lk 22:53). He has made his claim and has defied Caiaphas, the High Priest. (Word Pictures in the New Testament) Comment: The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Lev 24:15-16+). On the basis of this Second Mock trial Jesus was condemned to death, but they had no authority under Roman law to carry out the penalty. What the Bible teaches - To accuse the Lord of this is itself blasphemy; and is equivalent to calling light dark. It shows the darkness of Jewish religion to make such a statement against the Lord of life and glory. No doubt Caiaphas believed what he said, but the belief of unbelievers is unbelief. Numerous Illegalities of the Trial of Jesus (AKA - A Mockery of Justice!) - When Jesus affirmed that He was the Messiah, the Sanhedrin responded in a way that broke more laws. The high priest was forbidden to tear his garments (Lev 10:6+, Lev 21:10+) and yet this is what he did. He also broke the law when he made a charge against Jesus, because charges were not to originate with the judges, whose job was only to weigh the charges presented. When Caiaphas claimed that there was no need of witnesses, he again broke the law, which stated there could be no condemnation except by testimony of two or three witnesses and they must agree in every detail. Caipahas broke the law when he put Jesus under oath in an attempt to make Jesus testify against Himself. Caiaphas also broke the law when he accused Jesus of blasphemy, for this charge was only valid if the person charged had actually pronounced the actual name of God. When the Sanhedrin passed their guilty sentence, they violated the law that said a person could not be condemned on the basis of only his own words. Also, their verdict of guilty was at night which was illegal. The guilty verdict was pronounced at the same time as the trial itself, but the law stated that the trial and the guilty verdict had to be separated by at least 24 hours. When they declared Jesus was condemned to die, they did so by acclamation, which was illegal for the death penalty had to be given by individual count, beginning with the youngest so they would not be influenced by their elders. Announcing the sentence on the same day as the trial was illegal for the sentence could only be given three days after a guilty verdict. Finally, they broke the law by beating Messiah, an action which was not allowed by law. Another law that was broken is no trials could be held on the eve of the Sabbath or a feast day. Fruchtenbaum sums it up writing that "this stage of the trial was a complete travesty of Jewish Civil justice, by the laws of the day." Below is Arnold Fruchtenbaum's summary of the twenty-two judicial laws of the Sanhedrin which were broken at Messiah’s trial are as follows (there is obvious duplication with the preceding note): 1. According to Exodus 23:8, there was to be no arrest by ecclesiastical authorities that was effected by a bribe. 2. There were to be no steps of criminal proceedings after sunset. 3. Judges and Sanhedrin members could not participate in the arrest. 4. There were to be no trials before the morning sacrifice. 5. All trials were to be public; secret trials were forbidden. 6. Sanhedrin trials were only to be held in the Hall of Judgment in the Temple Compound. 7. The proper procedure for the trial was to be: first the defense; then the accusation. The judges who argued for innocence were to speak before the ones who argued for guilt. 8. While all judges of the Sanhedrin may argue in favor of acquittal, all may not argue in favor of guilt. 9. On the basis of Deuteronomy 19:15, there were to be two or three witnesses, and their testimonies had to be in perfect agreement. 10. There was to be no allowance for the accused to testify against himself. 11. Based on Leviticus 21:10, the high priest was forbidden to tear his garments. 12. The charges against the defendant were not to originate with the judges; they could only investigate charges brought to them. 13. When the charge was blasphemy, guilt could only be established if the defendant had actually pronounced the very name of God. 14. A person could never be condemned on the basis of his own words alone. 15. The judges’ verdict could never be announced at night. 16. In cases of capital punishment, the trial and the verdict of guilt could not occur at the same time. They had to be separated by at least 24 hours. 17. Voting for the death penalty had to be done by individual count beginning with the youngest judge so that the younger would not be influenced by the elder. 18. A unanimous decision for guilt showed innocence since it was impossible for a minimum of twenty-three men or a maximum of seventy-one men to agree without plotting. 19. The sentence could only be pronounced three days after the guilty verdict. 20. A person condemned to death could not be beaten or scourged beforehand. 21. Judges were to be humane and kind. 22. No trials are allowed on the eve of the Sabbath or on a feast day. For a more detailed discussion of the rules/laws for trials, witnesses, etc. see Buss' ten page discussion "Extracts from the Mishna." Buss - The Trial Before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin Buss - Importance of Witnesses Buss - Many False Witnesses Buss - Second Stage, Before Caiaphas - Two Witnesses Buss - Third Stage Before Caiaphas - Ye Are All Witnesses (3) The Third Mock Trial: Before the Sanhedrin Among the four Gospels, the final religious trial is described in most detail by Luke (Luke 22:66–71) with brief descriptions by Matthew (Mt 27:1) and Mark (Mk 16:1). The Second Trial broke up between 3-5 AM after passing the death sentence on Jesus. The Third Trial was a veiled attempt by the Jewish leaders to make their illegal nocturnal proceedings look "legal" or "official." And so the religious leaders waited until daylight so they could claim that the trial had not occurred at night. The Third Trial moved from the private homes of the high priests to the official Hall of Hewn Stones (SEE PICTURE) in the Temple in Jerusalem. When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber (Aka, Hall of Hewn Stones), saying, 67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask a question, you will not answer. 69 “But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.” 70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” 71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (Lk 22:66-71) Notice that the Sanhedrin asked Jesus two questions, both of which He had already answered. Their "ruse" was necessary in order to present a pretense of legality. In Lk 22:67a the first question was "Tell us, are you the Messiah?" (NLT). Jesus responded that He had told them and that they had refused to believe. Nevertheless, Jesus said that His claims to be the Messiah would be authenticated when they would see the Son of Man (a title for Messiah) sitting at the right hand of God the Father (Lk 22:67b–69). Their second question was “Are you then the Son of God?” and Jesus said "Yes, I am" (Lk 22:70). The very attempt to legalize an illegal proceeding was filled with further illegalities. Once again the religious leaders said that they had no need of witnesses and condemned Christ on the basis of His own words (both illegal). So the tragic attempt to “legalize the illegal” only resulted in further infractions of the law. With this the Three Mock Religious trials came to an end, with a final charge of blasphemy, which did carry with it the death penalty. Buss - Meeting At Daybreak James Smith - PETER’S DENIAL Luke 22:54–62 “Sirs, the significance of this your doubt Lies in the reason of it; ye do grudge That those, your lands, should have another Lord. Ye are not loyal, therefore ye would fain Your King should bide afar.” —INGLELOW. “To be forewarned is to be forearmed.” But Peter did not seem to profit anything from the Lord’s forewarning that “Satan desired to have him that he might sift him as wheat.” It was more than Job got. Christ uses a fan to blow away the chaff, and cleanse the wheat; the Devil uses a sieve to save the chaff and cast out the wheat. Next to the power of Christ dying for us is the power of His praying for us. “I have prayed for thee” (v. 32; John 17:15). Let us note the steps in Peter’s downfall. I. Self Confidence. He said, “Lord, I am ready to go with Thee into prison and to death” (Lk 22:33). Peter thought he was ready now, but the testing time had not yet come; he should have believed the Lord’s Word, that his prayer for Him was greatly needed. Peter had not yet learned that “without Him he could do nothing” but faint and fail. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). II. The Fear of Man. “Peter followed afar off” (Lk 22:54). Now was Peter’s time to “go with Him into prison,” but his feet were caught in that snare that is always made by the “fear of man.” Acts speak louder than words. Let us beware of imitating Peter’s cowardly conduct by refusing to identify ourselves with Christ’s cause when others are ruthlessly treating His Word and His work. “Following afar off” is nothing but a half-hearted denial. III. Companying with the Scornful. “Peter sat down with them” (Lk 22:55). Through the influence of John, Peter was allowed into the open court, but he joined the scoffers and warmed himself at the enemies’ fire (John 18:15–18). John doubtless followed Christ into the judgment hall. Following afar off will surely lead to mingling with the ungodly, and joining with them in their unholy mirth. After the prodigal went into the far country he was soon found joining himself to a citizen (Luke 15:15). IV. Denial. “He denied Him, saying, I know Him not” (Lk 22:56–60), and that three times over, as the Lord had said. The fruit of self-confidence is Christ-denial. Christ is always being condemned when pride sits in the throne of our heart. Let us take care that we don’t throw stones at Peter for doing in one day what we ourselves may be doing every day we live—refusing to confess Christ our Lord. Then came his— V. Repentance. “He went out and wept bitterly” (Lk 22:62). The Lord Jesus Christ, while being led from the judgment hall across the open court to the guard-room, cast such a searching, pitiful, heart-melting look on Peter that wakened his sin-drugged memory, and filled his eyes with the bitter tears of sorrow and penitence. One look of Christ is enough to make the deep sea of the past to yield up its dead. “Peter remembered.” An awakened memory will be a blessing or curse, according to our relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. “If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive” (1 John 1:9). ED. NOTE - Did you notice one crucial element James Smith left out? Prayer to prepare one BEFORE the temptation comes! Luke 22:55 After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them. KJV Luke 22:55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. After they had kindled a fire Luke 22:44; Mt 26:69; Mark 14:66; John 18:17,18 Peter was sitting among them Ps 1:1; 26:4,5; 28:3; Pr 9:6; 13:20; 1 Cor 15:33; 2 Cor 6:15-17 Luke 22 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Excellent Diagram/Map of Jesus' Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion PETER'S "TRIAL" Note that all Four Gospels have descriptions of Peter's denial (see Scripture below), but comparing these four accounts is not always straightforward. Keep this in mind as you study, teach and preach on Peter's denials. Stein for example comments that there are several differences including "such things as: exactly where and when the three denials took place, who the people were who questioned Peter, the exact wording of Peter’s denials, and the number of cock crows (one or two). All four (Gospel writers agree) that Peter (1) denied his Lord three times (2) on the night of Jesus’ betrayal (3) in the courtyard of the high priest, (4) that a maid questioned Peter, and (5) that a cock crowed “immediately” after the third denial." (NAC) (Numbers in parentheses added). Below are ALL FOUR GOSPEL versions describing Peter's denials. You might want to prayerfully spend a few moments reading each account (even several times). The notes will attempt to integrate the four accounts as much as is possible. There will be some repetition of verses and phrases from Matthew, Mark and John's account in the verse by verse comments on Luke's version. MATTHEW'S VERSION (Mt 26:58) But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome. (Mt 26:69 (FIRST ACCUSATION) Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” (FIRST DENIAL) 70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” 71 (SECOND ACCUSATION) When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” (SECOND DENIAL) 72 And again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” 73 (THIRD ACCUSATION) A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.” (THIRD DENIAL) 74 Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly. MARK'S VERSION (Mk 14:54) Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at the fire. (Mk 14:66-72) s Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, 67 (FIRST ACCUSATION) and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.” (FIRST DENIAL) 68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about.” And he went out onto the porch. 69 (SECOND ACCUSATION) The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, “This is one of them!” 70 (SECOND DENIAL) But again he denied it. (THIRD ACCUSATION) And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too.” (THIRD DENIAL) 71 But he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this man you are talking about!” 72 Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, “Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And he began to weep. JOHN'S VERSION (Jn 18:17 (FIRST ACCUSATION) Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” (FIRST DENIAL) He *said, “I am not.” 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. (Jn 18:25 (SECOND ACCUSATION)Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” (SECOND DENIAL) He denied it, and said, “I am not.” 26 (THIRD ACCUSATION) 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?” (THIRD DENIAL) 27 Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. LUKE'S VERSION (Luke 22:54-62) Having arrested Him, they led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest; but Peter was following at a distance. 55 After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them. 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, “This man was with Him too.” (FIRST DENIAL) 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know Him.” 58 A little later, another saw him and said, “You are one of them too!” (SECOND DENIAL) But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” 59 After about an hour had passed, another man began to insist, saying, “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too.” (THIRD DENIAL) 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. 61 The Lord 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.” 62 And he went out and wept bitterly. Darrel Bock adds that "The Gospels differ about who elicits Peter’s denials; the slave girls are more prominent in Matthew (Mt 26:69, 71) and Mark (Mk 14:66, 69) than in Luke (Lk 22:56). Luke's version of Peter's 3 denials is found in Luke 22:55-62 almost like a "parenthesis" because Luke introduces the Second religious trial in Lk 22:54 but then does not describe it again until Luke 22:63ff, and even there leaves out details found in the other two synoptic accounts. Specifically, Luke does not have the details of Caiaphas' interactions with Jesus (for those interactions read Mt 26:59-66 and Mk 14:55-64 and/or see the preceding summary notes on the Second Religious trail). Let's begin with the last phrase in Luke 22:54 where we find Peter was following (Jesus) at a distance (see Mt 26:58, Mk 14:54) possibly hoping to prove wrong Jesus’ prediction that He would deny and forsake Him at His death. Recall that all 11 disciples had already "left Him and fled." (Mt 26:56, Mk 14:50, compare Jesus' prophecy in Mt 26:31 and Mk 14:27 = fulfillment of Zechariah 13:7+). Peter must have circled back and began following the guards taking Jesus to the house of Annas (Jn 18:13). John tells us there was "another disciple" (Jn 18:15) who was following along with Peter. All three synoptic Gospels record that they were following "at a distance", NOT too close! While the identity of the other disciple is not definitely stated, most commentaries believe this was John. John's Gospel tells us "the other disciple (JOHN), who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter" (Jn 18:16) into the courtyard. Matthew, Mark and Luke's accounts all lack John's explanation and thus give the impression that Peter just waltzed right into the courtyard (Mt 26:58, Mk 14:54, Lk 22:54-55). Matthew tells us that Peter was following "to see the outcome." (Mt 26:58) Peter was following at a distance - Earlier Peter had declared “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!” (Lk 22:33+). Before we are too hard on Peter's denial, we need to acknowledge that he was at least being somewhat true to his words, because following Jesus could have meant imprisonment or even death had he been discovered. After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard - The time is around 1 AM on Friday. Jerusalem is elevated so in the Spring it can get quite cool at night (probably in the 60's). Peter is in the joint courtyard between the residences of Annas and Caiaphas. John 18:16 records that John ("another disciple" who had also been following Jesus - a fact only recorded in Jn 18:15) had to speak to the "doorkeeper" in order for Peter to gain entrance to the courtyard. This detail is lacking in the other 3 gospel records each of which gives the impression that Peter was following Jesus and just waltzed into the courtyard by himself (Mt 26:58, Mk 14:54, Lk 22:54). Kindled a fire - Luke uses the word for fire (Gk = pur) but Mark's version ("warming himself at the fire" Mk 14:54) uses a different word phos which is most often translated light which emphasizes the light from the fire shone on Peter's face which enabled the servant-girl to identify Peter as one who was with Jesus. As an aside it notable that at this fire Peter denied his Lord, but at another charcoal fire Peter was restored by His Lord (John 21:9). And had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them - Among who? Matthew 26:58 and Mark 14:54 say that Peter set down with the officers. Officers is the Greek word huperetes which conveys the basic meaning of one who acts under orders of another to carry out their will and thus could refer not only to the servants of the Sanhedrin but also the servants of the high priest. David