大祭司與彼得

大祭司與彼得

John 18:12-27

Objective

• To help participants recognize our human tendency to act out our fears, and cultivate a desire for Jesus’ freedom in living out truths.

Plan

• Name 3 things that you particularly fear.
• Read the passage.
• Group leader: Briefly explain the setting of this passage in relation to the previous few bible study passages, so that the group members may have a sense of where they are in the passion-week narrative.
• Simon Peter and “the other disciple” (presumably John) followed the detachment of soldiers to the high priest’s courtyard. What do you imagine Peter would see as he followed along? What do you think went through his heart and mind as Peter followed the arresting party?
• Where exactly were the soldiers bringing Jesus? That is, where did the questioning take place? (If the group members fail to appreciate the subtlety of this question, ask them: Did the questioning occur in the courtyard of Annas, or that of Caiaphas?)
• Group leader: Explain the political role of Annas: i.e., even though he did not hold the formal office of the high priest at the time of Jesus’ trial, he nevertheless enjoyed more political power than Caiaphas. Annas was therefore the de facto high priest. (See the Background section for more explanations.) Optionally, explain also Caiaphas’ previous statement regarding Jesus (verse 14, referring to John 11:49-52).
• Group leader: Help group members draw an analogy with what they know from Chinese history. According to the law, you are supposed to be questioned by the emperor, but instead you are brought in front of the emperor’s mother, who holds unchecked political influence!
• What would you feel if you were to be treated this way in an interrogation?
• Exercising his personal connection, John (i.e., “the other disciple”) brought Peter into Annas’ courtyard. When the servant girl at the door recognized Peter to be one of Jesus’ disciples, Peter denied. Why did he do that? (Group leader: Invite the group members to “dig deeper” for this question.)
• Note that John (i.e., “the other disciple”) was next to Peter during the first denial. That means Peter knew John might have overheard the denial. If you were Peter, what would you feel?
• Do you have experiences in which you act out your fear by “playing safe” at the expense of integrity, like Peter did? Are there significant events or elements of your up-bringing that have caused you to become prone to this?
• Group Leader: Explain the illegitimacy of the interrogation procedure to the group members. In verse 19, the high priest questioned Jesus regarding his disciples and his teaching. In the Jewish judicial practice of Jesus’ time, this may very well be an illegitimate procedure. Annas was supposed to question witnesses prior to questioning the accused. (See the Background section for explanations.)
• In light of this problematic practice, why would you think Jesus replied in the way described in verses 20-21.
• Why did the official nearby slapped Jesus in the face? (Group leader: Direct the group members to feel the dilemma faced by Annas’ party, as reflected in Jesus’ reply in verse 23.)
• How would Peter behave if he were in Jesus’ place? How would you behave if you were in Jesus place?
• Why do you think Jesus can respond to threats and wrongful intimidations in such a unique manner? (Group leader: This is an open discussion. Do not expect a single definitive answer.)
• In verse 25, why did Peter deny Jesus again? In verse 26-27, what would Peter have felt after his 3rd denial of Jesus?
• Group leader: Point out the following observation to the group member: When we allow ourselves to act out our fear repeatedly, fear becomes a habit, an integral part of our character. And we do this even when deep down inside we hate ourselves for acting this way.
• How much do you desire to be as free as Jesus in living out truth? Does anything come to mind that you would like to do to further cultivate this spiritual longing of yours?
• Invite the group members to pray about the spiritual longings that they shared.

Background

• It is interesting to note that John interleaves the interrogation of Jesus with Peter’s three denials. The two accounts of Peter’s denials (first in verses 15-18, then in verses 25-27) are textually linked by the common setting of the bonfire, and the repeated phrase “warming himself.” Craig Evans argues that this is a common literary device in Greek literature, for the interweaving of parallel plot lines. There is therefore clearly discernable intention on John’s part to bring into sharp contrast the denial of Peter out of fear on one hand and Jesus’ courageously speaking truth to power on the other hand.
• Carson clarifies the confusion surrounding the office of high priest and Annas’ political role as follows. “Annas held the office [of high priest] from AD 6 until AD 15, when Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor, deposed him. Annas continued to hold enormous influence, not only because many Jews resented the arbitrary deposition and appointment of high priests by a foreign power (under the
• Mosaic legislation the appointment was for life!), but also because no fewer than five of Annas’ sons, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, held the office at one time or another. Annas was thus the patriarch of a high priestly family, and doubtless many still considered him the ‘real’ high priest even though Caiaphas was the high priest by Roman lights.”
• Some commentators believe that the procedure in which Jesus was interrogated was illegitimate according to the first-century Jewish practice of formal hearing. An accusation shall only be made according to the testimony of witnesses. That is, witnesses shall be interrogated prior to the questioning of the defendant (in fact, witnesses for the defendant shall be heard before witnesses against the defendant). The reply of Jesus makes a lot of sense if it is understood in this context.
• These background materials are based on D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Eerdmans, 1991.