The Blending of Church and State (part 2 of 2) ...

This was a very unfortunate turn of events.  It made no sense to Pilate.  Why kill an innocent man, and let go a known criminal?  Pilate must resort to a plan B now in order to avoid being responsible for the shedding of innocent blood.  If there is hatred for Christ, perhaps Pilate can illicit pity for Him.  So John continues the story in chapter 19 and verse one saying … “Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.”  This punishment was the worst the Roman Empire had invented short of death.  A whip was used with broken shards of glass in the tips in order to rip flesh from the body on its return.  39 lashes were given, as 40 killed a man.  Having endured this torture the victim would never be the same.  But from Pilate’s point of view, at least He would be alive.  The Jews would have sympathy and curb their anger having seen this Man so close to death, and enduring so much pain.  Pilate could emerge guilt free as he was now simply picking the best of 2 bad options.

 

But the soldiers of Pilate had no philosophical idealism regarding truth.  They were men of blood.  They fought to live, and hated their enemies.  To them, Christ must have been guilty of fomenting revolt or Pilate would have never had Him punished so violently.  So the soldiers took it upon themselves to add to the punishment of their perceived enemy.  John continues in verse 2 … “And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, [verse 3] And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.”  This was not done at the direction of Pilate.  Pilate was looking for a way out of this, not to simply be cruel.  Had cruelty been his goal, he could have simply elected to see Christ die on the cross from moment number one.  Though the acts of the soldiers would only lend credence to his plans now.  He could display the broken abused body of Christ, the humiliation He had endured, and hope to gain sympathy from this accusing crowd.

John continues in verse 4 … “Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. [verse 5] Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!”  Normally this sight would have been enough to turn the stomachs of the average citizen.  Only men of combat were used to seeing this much blood and pain.  This was sure to illicit sympathy, what more could anyone demand where it comes to meeting out punishment?  They responded in verse 6 … “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”  The response of evil to seeing that much pain and blood, was a demand for more.  Evil will never be satisfied until death is its result.  The hunger for more is ever present.  No amount of money, fame, glory, or gratification will ever satisfy the craving of evil, for evil must always demand more.  Where love would look at Christ in pity, even Pilate looked at Christ with pity.  Evil has no pity.  The demand of these men keeping themselves pure to partake of the Passover was for death.

Pilate responds in the same verse, effectively saying, “fine” go do it yourselves then, because I will not condemn him.  Pilate adds He has done nothing wrong, there is no fault in Him.  Even under the duress of the worst punishment Rome could envision before death; Christ has done nothing from which to find fault.  He has confessed no wrong doing, because He has done no wrongdoing.  He is a truly innocent man.  Pilate has never seen this before.  Most of us have done something we are not proud of.  When faced with nearly life ending torture and pain we are more likely to confess it, to get the pain to end.  But Christ had no such option, because He had done nothing wrong.  Pilate could simply not figure out why these men had it in for Christ.  But the Jews began to enlighten him when they responded in verse 7 … “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

There it is; the reason behind the hatred.  The pious Jews had found someone who they were not holier than.  They did not want to accept that “this” was the embodiment of their God on earth.  Pilate had been informed about the prophecies of the Messiah.  He understood the idea of a God walking among men.  His own Roman religions, based on those of the Greeks that preceded them, told stories of gods among men who carried with them great power.  Jesus had just told Pilate that He was a king, but not a king of this world.  Perhaps Jesus came from another world entirely.  Perhaps Jesus was from Olympus, or Jupiter, or Mars.  Now the miracles made sense.  The Jews believed in only one God and they did not want Jesus to be it.  But Pilate now saw how a diety might be a very real threat to the Jewish religion.  However the worse threat was to Pilate.  Could Pilate judge a real god?

John continues in verse 8 … “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; [verse 9] And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.”  Pilate’s wife had a dream to avoid this man before him.  In Roman culture dreams were valued.  Pilate heard about all the miracles and now feared they were not stories, but in fact were true.  What is worse, what if the Jews were essentially correct?  What if this was the actual son of the only true God?  He asks Jesus to say where He is from.  But this time Jesus is silent.  The silence is worse for Pilate.  He sees He is uncovering truth.  Jesus likely is a god, but what if He is the real God?  Pilate attempts to assert power to get Christ to answer His questions.  He already knows torture won’t work.  Jesus has already been through more of that than any other prisoner he keeps.  So He tries to use the lure of freedom to get Christ to respond saying in verse 10 … “Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?”  Pilate could still kill Him, but more to the goal of he wanted to do, he wanted to release Him.

Jesus responds to Pilate in verse 11 … “Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”  He does not deny He is a God.  What if Jesus is the God of Truth?  What if that is His special power?  Jesus recognizes that power comes from God above, and so tells Pilate that he is where he is, because of the power of God.  Pilate now sees that his own life is a result of the plans of God, the blessings of God.  Now stands before him, the God of Truth.   This is an injustice.  This is no longer a question about guilt or innocence.  This has become a quest to see the injustice ended.  Truth must be set free.  Truth must be restored to the world.  Pilate has abandoned completely his role as judge and now seeks to become the advocate for Christ.  He wants to be His defense attorney.  He wants to see Christ set free.  He now seeks every political favor, he employs every ability he has, to see Christ released.  He does not want the God of Truth to be killed by his own edict.  Taxes are just not that important.  It is likely then when he sends Christ to Herod to see if perhaps Herod will free Him.  John does not record this series of events in his gospel, but the mission of Pilot to set Christ free John does record. 

John states Pilate’s intent in verse 12 … “And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.”  Something was horribly wrong.  These people hated Caesar.  They constantly looked to revolt against Rome.  For them to be aligning themselves now with the very leader they hated in order to see this innocent man killed, was perhaps the best evidence that what Christ had said, was indeed the truth.  This king from another world, this God of Truth, how could he pose so great a threat to the Jewish religious leadership?  In verse 13 John continues … “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. [verse 14] And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! [verse 15] But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.”

The religious leadership had gone from accusing Christ to now accusing Pilate.  The reports that were sure to travel to Rome were; that Pilate had sided with a revolutionary against Rome, while the loyal priests were faithful to Caesar.  All the attempts to illicit sympathy had failed.  The crowd seemed almost more enraged.  The preparation for the Passover had already begun, yet these “pure” men continued to stay at the judgment hall in order to insure that murder took place, and Pilate did not release Christ while they attended to their religious duties.  No matter what, this Roman authority must be made to have Christ executed.  It was un-nerving to the priests to consider that in His brief time with Pilate, Christ may have made yet another convert to Himself.  If a Roman governor were susceptible to the teachings of Christ, who could possibly be safe.  The leadership had to insure the death of Christ, if that meant publicly declaring an allegiance ONLY to Caesar, then so be it.  The Jews were willing to align themselves to the thing they hated most, to see God die.  It is akin to having Jews with full knowledge of history aligning themselves to Neo-Nazi’s in order to see one of their own put to death.   The people would hate it.  The people would not understand.  But they so needed to see this threat to their control killed, they were willing to say anything, align with the devil himself, to see Christ killed once and for all.

The Jewish religious leaders would allow no compromise.  They would allow for nothing other than death.  So despite his best efforts, the only way to release Christ now, was to start a revolution of his own.  Pilate would be required to give his own life to see Christ released.  The costs were just too high.  Perhaps Pilate reasoned that the other gods might intervene on Christ’s behalf.  But no matter his thinking, whether it was weakness, or just exhaustion that led to capitulation, he finally gave in.  John records in verse 16 … “Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.”  It is the ultimate of ironies that in the union of Church and State, it became State who sought desperately to escape the union and see justice and mercy prevail.   Church was bent on murder.  Church ALWAYS is.  The compulsion of the conscience through law has no other end game than the murder of dissent.  State is merely the tool of murder, but it is Church that drives it, and allows for no other outcome.  Had Christ been arrested and tried by Roman authorities without any intervention or interest from the priests, He would have been released, likely without even the scouring.  Pilate was done with the question of His guilt in only a brief initial encounter.  State would have seen Christ set free.  It was Church that demanded He be killed.

When modern Christians seek to reunite Church and State, when they label this effort a return to family values, they put themselves on the same path that killed the Son of God.  A return to the values of God cannot be done by the pen of our lawmakers.  It can only be accomplished by our individual submission to Christ and His transformative love.  Our religious values need no “protection” the State can offer, rather they cannot be bound or benefited by anything the State purports to control.  Pilate had no authority that God had not granted him.  Our religion does not need the shackles of a partnership with the State.  It needs for us to embrace the love of Christ so fully that our very existence changes the world around us, and impacts each life we encounter.  This is the way to change the world for the better, to demonstrate love in action.  Control is not the province of our God.  It is not His way to end conflict.  Love is.  Choice is.  Freedom that results from it is.  Let us abandon the ideas of re-uniting with the power of the State, and seek instead to be re-united with the power of Love that comes from Christ alone.

 

The Blending of Church and State (part 1 of 2) ...

There are those who believe that morality should be legislated.  They are not content to simply offer laws that prevent one person from damaging another, but rather believe we should extend the laws to make religious doctrine and belief the law of the land.  In effect, they would wish to have the full power of the State, to enforce that in which they believe.  Majority fundamentalist law is not ever a good thing.  Christians despise the idea of having to live under Muslim Sharia law.  But these same Christians see their own beliefs as under attack by atheists and Islamists, and so to “protect” themselves and their way of life, would gladly vote Christian principles and beliefs into our government enforced law.  Neither Christian nor Muslim would enjoy living under the most stringent Jewish fundamentalist laws.  Going back in history when the Catholic Church held heavy influence over the governments of Europe, vast killings were done in the name of God.  Tracing back further, John records the fate of Christ, when the Religion that had its roots and establishment by God through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses joined with the State power of Rome to decide the fate of Son of God.  The results are always the same when control is attempted over the conscience.  To ever have perfect freedom, love must be a choice, not a compulsion.

When we seek to take away the choice of what to believe, by the power of the State, it only ever ends in the death of the opposition.  John records the most poignant of examples in his gospel, chapter 18, and beginning in verse 28 … “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.”  The religious leadership of God’s church delivered Christ to Rome in order to be put to death.  The governor Pilate had not asked for this, he had not sought it.  Christ was brought to him, in order to be condemned to death.  Note that even while conducting a conspiracy to commit murder, the religious leaders are careful to “follow the rules” of their traditions, attempting not to “defile” themselves in order that they may eat the Passover.  As such they do not go all the way into the judgment hall of Pilate where they intend Christ to be condemned.  Observance of the Passover has become a highly regimented event of purported great significance throughout the nation.  It offers the religious elite an opportunity to demonstrate to the rest of the nation why they are holier than them.  It affirms their control over the people.

The words of Christ to the Samaritan woman that foretold the loss of significance about where people worshipped God, would completely undo the influence of the Pharisees over the people.  Without a specific temple, in a specific city, at a specific time – the individualized worship of God – would supplement all the traditions the Pharisees had established over the people to keep them under control.  Take for example the refusal to enter Pilate’s judgment hall.  Since when is entry into any building forbidden by the laws, intentions, and values of God?  The purpose for which we enter a building may run counter to the love of God, but the building itself has no moral significance.  It is merely a structure made of wood or stone.  Examine also the hypocrisy that allows money changers to literally take over the temple, cheating the worshippers and providing kick-backs to the priests during the holiest of feasts.  This practice was not prohibited it was encouraged.  Examine also the hypocrisy of a conspiracy to commit murder that is the purpose of their visit to Pilate, and yet they still believe themselves “pure” enough to partake of the Passover so long as they do not enter a particular structure while accomplishing the goal of murder of the innocent.  This is the extent to which the mind will rationalize its own evil when religion is used to kill others.

The religious leaders have convinced themselves, that as long as they do not personally kill Him, the blood of Christ will be on the hands of the Romans.  They take no personal accountability for the capture and arrest in the garden, for the mocking, insults, and beating during their examination of Him, nor for their complete inability to find one real fault in Him.  They act as if they accidently discovered Christ in the hands of Pilate about to be condemned to death, and they simply had no response to this eventuality; instead of seeing how this entire series of events could not have occurred without them.  They forget the blood money they paid to Judas to betray Him into their hands.  They forget the council meetings they have held where His death was agreed to, planned, financed, and now in the process of being carried out.  Evil does not ever recognize itself.  Evil hides, rationalizes, blames others, pretends to be righteous, and when based on religious fervor – convinces itself it is the will of God.

Pilate, who I imagine was perfectly happy with his own evening’s itinerary is disturbed by this interruption, and is forced to see what the commotion is about.  John continues in verse 29 … “Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? [verse 30] They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.”  Pilate now wants to know why Christ has been brought to him.  The answer they offer suggests that the crimes of Christ are actually against the government of Rome (otherwise why would they have brought Christ to Pilate).  Pilate, thinking that Christ must have simply been a thorn to the Pharisees, suggests the next logical course of action in verse 31 … “Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: [verse 32] That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.”  Pilate is offering the Jewish leaders autonomy to judge a trouble maker and punish Him however they like.  But the Jews are not interested in punishing Christ, they want Him dead.  And they still want to partake of Passover, so they need the Romans to do it.  The typical Roman method of execution was crucifixion and the words of Christ about being “lifted up” foretold this fate. 

Thus begins the examination of Christ by Pilate.  The fame of this miracle worker could hardly be ignored, there were political implications to what Pilate would do with Him.  The chief job of the Roman governor was to insure the smooth flow of Roman taxes back to Rome.  Insurrection posed a threat to the flow of money, and thus it would be considered a failure by Rome to have it occur, or last for any length of time.  Pilate knew the crowds of common people sought this man out.  He knew that if the followers of Christ were to become enraged, it could disrupt the flow of taxes back to Rome.  So he begins his inquiry with the most pressing political question of the day.  John records in verse 33 … “Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?”  If Christ intends to accept the coronation of the people, or perhaps if He already has, this is something Pilate must weigh when deciding His fate.  Is He a threat already?   Jesus responds in verse 34 … “Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”  In effect, Jesus asks, did my accusers tell you this, or have you obtained this idea from the witness of the people or perhaps a personal encounter?  The subtlety here in the answer of Christ, is that He has made no such declaration, and His predicament would suggest no earthly kingship.

Pilate responds with a sarcastic comment in verse 35 … “Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?”  Pilate is NO Jew, He is a Roman governor.  Pilate will have had no personal encounter with Christ up to now.  But in any case, the Jewish people have brought one of their own to a Roman for execution.  This is not a common event.  Further the High Priest and leadership of the religion have brought Christ here.  So Pilate wonders what Jesus has done to merit such disfavor among His own people.  Jesus responds in verse 36 … “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”  Notice first, that Jesus does not see the need for a fight against Rome even if He had been the king of this people, rather His servants would have fought to keep Him from being delivered to “the Jews”.  Interesting that even if He were the King of these people He intended no threat to Rome.  So even if guilty of what His accusers said, Pilate would have no interest in the accusation as Christ posed no threat to Rome.  But what Jesus was actually saying was something a bit deeper.  He was a King, but not a King over the world of evil in which we live.  His Kingship was over our hearts in order to break our chains to evil, and restore our freedom to love.  That was the perfection He was here to accomplish.  Jesus sees Himself as a King over all people, in that as many as choose to follow Him, and choose to acknowledge Him as their King, He accepts.

Pilate continues the exchange in verse 37 … “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [verse 38] Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.”  Pilate upon hearing the answer of Christ believes perhaps He is a King, but just not from around there.  Jesus changes the direction of the conversation and reaches out to Pilate in a way his quest for Roman justice would understand.  Jesus says He is here for this cause, that He bears witness unto the truth.  Those who seek truth, listen to His voice.  Pilate, who has sat in the judgment hall many times, and heard the voice of lawyers and witnesses, knows full well that people bend the truth to suit their own purposes.  Witnesses contradict each other without intent to lie, but offer testimony that could not possibly all be true, as they disagree about the facts.  Christian religious denominations study the same Bible, read the same texts, and come to completely different conclusions about what the “truth” is.  Each believing only its version of truth is truth.  So Pilate responds with his most perplexed evaluation of this asking “what is truth?”  The answer was literally standing in front of him.  Christ had said it before; He was the embodiment of truth.  What Pilate was sure of by now, is that there was literally no threat to Rome, nor guilt in the person brought before him.  In short, Christ was not worthy of death at all.

John records that Pilate believed he had a way out from being involved with the condemnation of an innocent man.  The Romans offered the Jews a traditional prisoner release on the occasion of the Passover.  So Pilate attempts to make the choice a simple one.  He will offer the people the most notorious criminal they know.  Pilate will offer them a known murderer, robber, and general criminal that would threaten their very lives if he escaped.  Or, they can have Christ, who from what Pilate can tell, is completely harmless.  So in verse 39 it continues … “But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? [verse 40] Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.”  The people would prefer a criminal who intended them harm, than the freedom that Christ would offer.  The choice is no different today for us.  So often we choose the tempter who means us harm, than the freedom from pain Christ longs to bring us.  We like our addictions.  We like our misery.  We revel in it.  And thus we add our voices to those who prefer Barabbas to Christ.  It looks as though Religion is determined to make the State bend to it’s will.

But the trial and the blending of Church and State was not over yet …

 

A Contrast in Perceptions ...

12 men had followed Christ for nearly three years, right up till now, the night of His doom.  We don’t know where all of them were, with what was to transpire, because it is not explicitly documented in the gospels.  Perhaps they blended into the various crowd scenes that took place, perhaps they ran and re-grouped in the upper room they had just had dinner in.  Perhaps they simply remained at a distance away from prying eyes and probing questions, close enough to see, but not close enough to be dragged into it.  When on that great day, we join them in the heavenly courts, perhaps we can ask them; though it may be a great while before our curiosity of what took place overwhelms our senses with what heaven will have to offer us.  In any case, while we do not know the story of all of his followers, we have a pretty good idea about the story of some of them during this time.  We imagine Mary and Martha, seeking out Mary Jesus’ mother to bring her and comfort her with what was happening.  Not much is said of Lazarus from this point forward, but the conspiracy to kill Christ, had added Lazarus as well; for the priests could not abide leaving one alive who was raised from the dead.  Lazarus was living proof of the divinity of Christ, should he be called as a witness at the trial of Christ, things might go badly for the religious leadership.  But again we do not know exactly what happened to Lazarus, or where he was at this point in time.

John however, who is reluctant to refer to himself directly by name in his own gospel, does state where he was, and where Peter was when these events began to unfold.  In chapter 18 of his gospel, John records in verse 15 … “And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.”  It was John who was known to the high priest.  And as the high priest recognized John, he let him inside.  This, to me, represents such a dichotomy in perceptions between one true follower of Christ and another.  John followed Christ right into the place where men intent on killing Him had what looked like full power over Him.  John went there without representing a threat to these men (or they would not have let him in).  And He went there knowing he was likely risking his own life in doing so.  He had seen Christ submit.  He now must have truly feared that the mission of the Messiah was going to be one of sacrifice, not of liberation from Rome.  Yet John goes right in seemingly without thinking about it.  He continues in verse 16 … “But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.” 

Peter however, hangs out at the outer door.  It seems while John was recognized and allowed entrance, Peter was not.  So John has to go back and tell the door maid, Peter is with him, and to let him in.  She complies.  And then John records in verse 17 … “Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.”  What a difference in perceptions between John and Peter.  John is openly known by the enemies of Christ and is allowed entrance, he further has to vouch for Peter to get him in.  Now Peter is asked about being a disciple of Christ, by merely a door maid, and his first thought is to deny it.  It makes little sense.  John just vouched for Peter with that same door maid.  John is clearly a disciple and is not trying to hide that fact.  Peter is guilty by association with John.  Yet Peter decides it is better to keep his allegiance to Christ a secret, rather than allow it to be made public.

And we modern Christians sit in judgment of Peter on this topic, believing ourselves to be above this kind of denial and shenanigans.  If “we” had been asked by the door maid, surely “we” would have acted like John, NOT like Peter.  But how many of us are so open with our peers, our work associates, or creditors, or our customers about our own relationship with Christ?  Do we bow our heads in prayers of thanks over our meals in expensive restaurants or do we tend to “forget”, offering rather silent prayers so as not to “offend” others nearby.  Do we mirror the language spoken around us, when others swear, so do we, in order that we keep everyone comfortable and not offend them by restraining from words our Lord would not use?  Do we often choose to mirror the world around us, rather than allow ourselves to be marked as different because of who we believe in?  And in electing to keep our relationship secret with Christ, do we not simply mimic the behavior of Peter in the very same situation?

And these situations present themselves to us every day, in our everyday lives.  What about those Christians who dare to take the good news of love of the gospel into hostile lands; when these brothers are asked if they are Christian it is often at the point of a gun, where the “yes” answer is not the one the questioner is looking to hear.  Peter knew the stakes and may well have believed the door maid was an active agent or spy for the high priest looking to get Peter to confess to his earlier impetuous actions with the sword.  If nothing else, being associated with Christ right at that moment might end his own life early, and never allow him to carry the awesome ministry he had planned.  Or is that more of our own logic, than the thoughts of Peter?  Better to lie to those who intend us harm, and live to witness another day, than to openly declare for our Savior, and lose our earthly lives and ministries as a result.  Peter believed himself under the gun, and so elected to deny Christ openly, and keep his love a secret.  Do we really do anything different?

The interesting dichotomy in this situation is with John.  John makes no effort to hide his relationship with Christ at all, and further seems to have no fear for himself throughout the very same events.  Peter fears discovery and with it, a horrible death.  John seems perfectly oblivious to the threats all around him, it seems John is completely focused on what is happening to Christ, and that has become so important to him, he does not even perceive a danger to himself.  How interesting that what we focus on can so completely consume us.  Peter was focused on himself.  Like the time when he briefly walked on water, and lost sight of Christ in order to show off to his friends.  Now he had lost sight of Christ, and was focused on his own self-preservation.  John was looking to stay as close to Christ as he could get.  As such he was fully focused on Christ, and the horror which Christ was permitting Himself to endure.  John had no thought for himself, because Jesus was the sole focus of His mind.  It was the same event.  It was the same followers of Christ, with similar experiences with their Lord.  But it was a remarkably different perception between one and the other.

John continues the events in verse 18 … “And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.”  Peter now thinks to himself, perhaps it is better to just hang out with these guys by the fire.  He does not have to get too close to Christ.  He can view Christ at a distance, where it is safer, where it is warmer, where it is more convenient.  Sound familiar?  How often do we choose to view Christ from a safer distance?  Were we to submit all of ourselves to Christ, He might take away the one thing we value most (our cherished sins).  Better to view Christ at a safer distance, give Him some of us, but not all of us.  Better to offer Christ the parts of our lives we are not happy with, and keep the parts of our lives we like.  But what we do not realize; is that the danger is from the distance with Christ, not the closeness.  The danger is what we hold on to, and it is that which makes us unhappy.  The things we give to Him, are the things with which He brings us happiness, transforming us from our addictions to pain, into freedom from pain.  Peter was putting himself more at risk, by moving away from Christ.  He would have been safer nearer to Him.  The same is true for us today.

Now John turns his attention away from Peter and back towards the sham of a trial that Christ has found Himself in.  In verse 19 the high priest begins … “The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. [verse 20] Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. [verse 21] Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.”  Jesus offers a striking contrast to the heart of the high priest who has conspired to kill Christ and Lazarus in private.  Murder is now the official policy of the Pharisees when counter ideas cannot be defeated on merit.  Jesus contrasts the secrecy required for hypocrisy with the open ability to speak words of truth that do not differ by day or by night.  Truth needs no cover of darkness, rather truth brings light into darkness.  Christ is happy to have his “doctrines” repeated by those He has taught.

Even now, the High Priest is wondering if there is some deep secret Christ has to manipulate power and miracles; that He might be willing to share with them.  The High Priest seems almost willing to accept rituals and witchery rather than love that marks the will of God the Father.  If Christ had been a devil, he might have been able to open up a new church right then and there.  The priest was looking for the secrets to power.  He had no interest in humble love or submission.  But Christ tells him, there are no dark secrets that are the key to His power.  There are no secret words, or rituals that give one control, there is only submission that allows the will of the Father to be seen in our lives.  The teachings He has offered can be recited by those who have heard Him.  The love He has brought to the world, is His only mantra, His only secret, His only key to success, His only reflection of His Father.  And so John records the response of evil in verse 22 … “And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?”  The officer was offended that the simple truth of Christ showed no deference to the office of the High Priest.  It was un-nerving to hear such an authoritative response to the question of the High Priest.

Jesus answered him in verse 23 … “Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? [verse 24] Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.”  Notice Love does not respond to hatred with more hatred, Christ makes no attempt to hit the officer back in return.  Further notice, Christ does not condemn the man who just struck Him unjustly.  He does not “judge” this man and condemn him, dooming him to eternal punishment and second death from which there is no escape.  Revenge is not the goal or offspring of love.  Redemption is.  So instead Jesus asks the man who has just struck Him, to examine “why” he has done what he has done.  Instead Jesus asks him to carefully look at His words, and see, if they are truly worthy of being hit for, or perhaps invite more investigation towards redemption, light, life and truth.  So often we Christians believe there is a “limit” to our patience, a “limit” to the grace and love of God, and once someone crosses that line, they are forever doomed.  But the life and example of Christ shows us that love was here to reach EVERYONE, there was no-one beyond redemption, and no act that would forever doom us to separation from God, short our daily refusal to be reconciled.  Christ was living proof that there are no limits to His love.

John then returns his attention to Peter still warming himself by the fire and continues in verse 25 … “And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.”  This is now the second inquiry into the loyalty of Peter.  He is past the door maid, and while he perceives a threat from association to Christ by being one of his disciples this is really only a perception.  John after all, is right there, close enough to hear what is going on, recognized by the high priest and allowed entry, and close enough to Christ to hear his conversation as well.  John is not hiding his discipleship and appears to be in no immediate danger.  But Peter is focusing more and more on himself, and his own self-preservation.  As he does so, he feels the need to affirm his earlier lie with yet another one.  John continues in verse 26 … “One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? [verse 27] Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.”

It is now much worse for Peter.  He has lied twice, but at this point the brother of the servant whose ear he cut off was a witness to the event and is asking him the same question.  He might have gotten away with his lies to the first two folks, but this questioner had a basis for his beliefs.  Peter’s denials now could only be empty.  Peter had boasted to Christ that his loyalty would be true to the point of death.  Now his loyalty had failed 3 tests of mere association.  When we trust in our own spiritual strength instead of depending on all our strength coming from Christ, we too find ourselves failing.  Our victories are NOT our own.  They belong to Christ.  The only thing we own is our failures.  We deny the strength of Christ, trusting to ourselves, and finding only failure.  When it is Christ alone in whom we trust, we can make no boasts, for we realize how little we do.  If we boast at all, it is only directed at the true source of love, victory, wisdom, truth and life.  In ourselves, in our own spiritual understanding, in our own scriptural interpretations we find only error, weakness, failure and loss.  But when we follow Christ, and find ourselves wholly consumed with what He is doing, what He is saying, how He is loving, we find ourselves undeterred by selfish perceptions and fears that have no basis.

Our perceptions are colored by the intensity with which we look at Christ.  Our realities reflect the failures of self-trust, or the victories He alone can bring.  Our similarities to Peter’s failing choices are stunning when our priorities have not been altered through submission to Christ.  But having submitted, only Christ becomes important to us, only love reflected and redemption revealed are the things that matter …