We live in a world stained by injustice. One such injustice is the way that an unbelieving world marginalizes and mistreats those who follow Jesus. You may feel this injustice in a mild way when you (1) pray before your meal during lunch-break, (2) tell your science teacher that you believe in creation rather than evolution, or (3) refrain from drinking alcohol and dancing at a company party. Others feel this more severely when they lose a job, miss out on a promotion, flunk a class assignment, lose friends, experience bullying, or receive harassment and rejection from family members due to their faith in Christ.Jesus forewarned that this would happen. In fact, just hours before his betrayal, he said, “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you’” (John 15:20). The word persecute means to chase or pursue someone for the purpose of harassing them and oppressing their views. They did this to Jesus and they will do this to you.When the Roman and Jewish forces arrested Jesus, they handed him over for a series of trials. By combining the accounts of all four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), we learn that he endured six trials altogether, three religious trials before Jewish authorities and three civil trials before Roman officials.[1] Of the three religious trials, John only records this one, though he mentions the second trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). He also describes in detail both civil trials before Pilate (John 18:28-28 and 39-19:16).When you observe Christ’s first religious trial, you see that he faced an unfair trial. The event was unethical from start to finish. But just as when the government forces arrested him (John 18:1-11), Jesus showed complete control over the situation. He shined the light of God’s truth into the darkness of that phony courtroom through his words and actions. Social injustice provides an opportunity to reveal the truth about Jesus.

Social injustice provides an opportunity to reveal the truth about Jesus.

The trials of Jesus provide us with an extreme case of dramatic irony. God had given Jesus his Son the responsibility to judge the world (John 5:22, 27). What’s more, he was perfectly righteous and had never sinned or broken any law. Yet here on this dark night, in a makeshift courtroom, a corrupt man named Annas sat as judge over the Son of God. The one who had given the law was being judged by the one who had broken it.

He received an unethical trial.

The word unethical means to violate proper rules of conduct in general or the standards which apply to a specific profession. By this definition, it is appropriate to call the religious trials of Jesus unethical. As the hearing by Annas demonstrates, the Jewish religious leaders did not follow proper rules of conduct or established legal standards for a religious trial. They violated both the law of God and their own regulations to prosecute Jesus.

An Unlawful Arrest

The Jewish officers and Roman soldiers arrested Jesus without a cause (John 18:12). Though they told him whom they were seeking (John 18:5, 7), they did not give a reason. Nevertheless, they bound him as a prisoner. Though this was likely the normal procedure for an arrest, it reminds us of when Abraham bound his son Isaac, but God spared him by promising to provide his own sacrificial lamb (Gen 22:9). Jesus would be that sacrificial lamb from God. By binding Jesus for arrest, the soldiers also remind us how the Israelites bound their animal sacrifices at the Temple, which also looked forward to the sacrificial death of Jesus for our sins (Psa 118:27). Through this unlawful arrest, the captors of Jesus fulfilled the Scripture, demonstrating that God was in complete control.

A Disqualified Judge

A man named Annas presided over this hearing (John 18:13). He was disqualified as a judge, though, because he had been removed from office by the Roman government several years before. His son-in-law, Caiaphas, was the high priest that year instead. Even so, Annas continued to influence the Sanhedrin and the public at large. He was somewhat like a former U.S. president who continues to carry the title “President” and to influence public opinion, though unofficially. By behaving in this way, Annas exploited his unofficial position as an opportunity to do things outside of the law. After all, if he wasn’t an official judge, then he was not obligated to follow necessary legal protocol.In addition to this unofficial status, another factor disqualified Annas from being an ethical judge. He carried a serious conflict of interest because he received an exorbitant revenue stream from the sale of sacrificial animals and the exchange of foreign coins to people who traveled long distances to the Temple. According to one source, he authorized the sale of these animals for an outrageous rate of twenty times above market value.^[2] One Jewish historian notes that the greed of Annas was so well-known that people called the outer courts of the Temple, where these transactions occurred, “the Bazaar of Annas.”[3] Because of these financial arrangements, Annas would have resented Jesus because he had disrupted these business operations when he cleansed the temple (John 2:13-16). This conflict of interest prevented Annas from being a fair and impartial judge for Jesus.

Unethical Protocol

Contrary to standard practice, Annas produced no witnesses for his case against Jesus and provided no formal charges (John 18:19). A proper trial would require an announcement of a formal charge explaining the reason for the trial. It would also produce witnesses that show the legitimacy of the charges. Furthermore, the judge would not serve as the prosecutor also. On all these points, Annas violated standard legal practice.

An Open-ended Interrogation

Annas violated legal protocol by interrogating Jesus with vague questions about his followers and his teaching (John 18:19). By doing this, he attempted to extract new or contradictory information through which Jesus might incriminate himself. Jewish law forbade this such a practice, requiring a statement of formal charges and allowing the defendant to remain silent. This strategy backfired. It revealed that he and the Jewish leaders did not have a case to bring against Jesus. This was a court case in search of a crime, and his interrogation tactics made this clear. It is fascinating to observe that while Jesus provided a brief answer to the question about his teaching, he said nothing to answer the question about his disciples. Once again, we see evidence of his firm commitment to guarding his followers and suffering in their place (John 18:9).

No Witnesses for the Defense

Annas allowed no witnesses to speak on behalf of Jesus in his defense. Even so, Jesus encouraged him to solicit testimonies from anyone in the public at large to verify the content of his public reputation and teaching ministry (John 18:21). Annas never honored this request. He was not concerned with following legal protocol.

A Premeditated Verdict

The authorities had already determined the outcome of this trial. Caiaphas had previously decided that it would be in the best interest of the Jewish nation that Jesus be executed (John 18:14). In fact, days before – after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead – Caiaphas formally began to advise and plot a way to execute Jesus (John 11:50-53). Since Jesus had claimed to be God and since Jewish authorities refused to believe him, they could have stoned him for speaking blasphemy. But to do this might have caused people to doubt their actions, since Jesus was popular in public opinion. For that reason, Caiaphas wanted him to die not as a religious heretic, but as a political criminal at the hands of the Roman government. Dying this way would turn public opinion against him. Ironically, they followed their plan but lost their nation anyway when Rome sacked Jerusalem in AD 70.

An Illegal Assault

In response to something Jesus said, a low-ranking temple guard assaulted him, smacking him across the face with his hand (John 18:22). This was an illegal action, even if Jesus had spoken inappropriately (which he did not). If Jesus had spoken disrespectfully to Annas (who was not the real high priest), then a presiding official should have explained how he had misspoken (John 18:23). Assaulting him without giving a reason was a violation of judicial ethics. Furthermore, if Jesus had not spoken wrongfully, then they had no reason for striking him at all and certainly acted in an illegal manner.

He responded in an ethical way.

From these seven observations, we can agree that Jesus received an unfair trial. Knowing this, we should also understand that despite this unethical treatment, he responded in an ethical way. He did not respond to this injustice against him in a wrong, revengeful, or sinful manner. Instead, he responded with the same calmness, confidence, and poise which he had displayed during his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane.

He deferred to his public record and reputation.

When Annas asked Jesus open-ended questions about his disciples and about his teaching, Jesus simply deferred to his public record and reputation. He did not capitulate to the interrogation and say things out of fear or in a false sense of obligation or pandering. He knew that his reputation was sterling and his record was clean. Defending himself in detail to this resentful man with ulterior motives would accomplish nothing. In this way, Jesus exercised his right to silence and revealed more clearly the truth about himself – that he was just, innocent, good, and righteous in every way.His public teaching ministry of three-plus years had left neither a trace of dishonesty nor a trail of sin behind him. That alone should persuade you to believe on him as your Savior. No other person could withstand such a test with perfection. What’s more, he had no “skeletons in his closet,” so to speak and his private teaching featured nothing secretive or different from his public teaching. He allowed his public record to speak for itself and added nothing more.

He appealed to the conscience of his captors.

After the guard assaulted him in the face, he appealed to the conscience of his captors by asking probing questions. He did not respond by hitting back, nor did he yell or show anger of any kind. Instead, he merely asked them to explain how he had spoken or acted wrongly. He knew they had nothing to say, so he asked this question not because he was confused or at a disadvantage, but because he knew they had no answer. Doing this would witness to the truth. It was the same thing as saying outright, “I didn’t do anything to deserve that!” But by asking a question rather than making a defensive statement, he gently appealed to the conscience of his interrogators rather than making a direct and cutting accusation.

Personal Application

In the end, Annas accomplished nothing through these illegal proceedings, except to damage his own reputation and to raise questions about the legitimacy of what was going on. So, he bound Jesus again and sent him to the courtroom of his son-in-law, Caiaphas, for a formal hearing (John 18:24). This was the man who was plotting a way to execute Jesus.Just as Jesus displayed his control over the events of his betrayal, so he displayed his control over the events of this trial, which was illegal and unethical in every way. Furthermore, this social injustice against Jesus provided an opportunity for him to reveal the truth about himself and the error of his enemies.

Believing on Jesus for Salvation

If you have not believed on Jesus as your God and Savior, then learning about this unjust prosecution of Jesus should encourage you to do so (cf. John 20:31). The Jewish religious leaders – who knew the Old Testament law like a PhD knows his dissertation topic and like a contractor knows the details of the OSHA handbook – had scrutinized and investigated the teaching ministry and personal character of Jesus for three-plus years and had nothing about which to accuse him. To arrange for Jesus’ execution, they had to resort to corrupt political strategies like this fraudulent trial. Contrary to the intentions of Annas, this trial further revealed the innocence of Jesus and the sinfulness of people like you and me. No one can claim to be as innocent or blameless as the sinless Son of God. He alone is the one man you can turn to for salvation from your sin.Furthermore, you should consider how you would have responded to such a trial if you had been in Christ’s place. Could you calmly and confidently point to your public reputation as your witness and request anyone who knew you to testify on your behalf? Could you truly say that you have no “skeletons” in your past? Only Jesus could give an answer like this. That is why you need to believe on him to save you from your sins. Without Jesus as your Savior, then you must answer to God for your many sins at the future day of judgment and you will not be innocent like Jesus.

Following the Example of Jesus in Suffering

“Christians should never expect a completely fair trial in the courts of this world.”^[4] I agree with this statement. Jesus did not receive a fair trial, so you and I should not expect better treatment than he himself received. To emphasize this point, you need to be made aware of what the disciple Peter teaches regarding how a believer should respond to injustice against Christians.

“Christians should never expect a completely fair trial in the courts of this world.”

Throughout this chapter (John 18), John featured Peter prominently. During the arrest, Peter assaulted an officer by striking him with a sword (John 18:10). During the trial before Annas, he denied that he had followed Jesus (John 18:15-18). After the trial before Annas, he denied this twice more (John 18:24-27). In each of these instances, Peter faced the dilemma of choosing how to respond to negative feedback from nonbelievers due to following Jesus. In each case, he responded the wrong way, in aggression, fear, and denial. Nevertheless, he would later acknowledge his failure and Christ would lovingly restore him and give him a special mission (John 21:15-23).One of the ways that he fulfilled this mission was to write two letters, guided by the Holy Spirit, called 1 and 2 Peter. The first of these letters reveals to us what Peter had learned about suffering for Christ. If you want to do an in-depth study of how to respond to hostility, corruption, and injustice in the world directed which is against believers, then get into your hammock with glass of lemonade or snuggle onto your couch with a mug of coffee and read all five chapters of 1 Peter. The man who wrote this letter had learned the hard way how not to respond to suffering as he watched the events of John 18 as an eyewitness along with John. He saw with his very own eyes what John 18 describes.Consider, for instance, what Peter tells us in 1 Peter 2:18-24. (As you read this passage, notice how verse 23 summarizes his trials in John 18 and 2:24 summarizes his crucifixion in John 19.) He tells us that Jesus did not retaliate against his adversaries when they treated him with injustice. Revile means “to insult strongly, to slander, to berate someone, and even to abuse someone.” Threaten means to utter threats of retaliation and getting even. When people insulted or abused him, he did not insult or abuse them back. When people threatened him, he didn’t offer threats of revenge in return. Instead, he “committed himself” or “handed himself over to the care of” the Father in heaven, who is a judge who always does what is right (Gen 18:25).If you have been mistreated for your faith in Christ, then God will respond to that mistreatment himself in exactly the right way. You don’t need to worry about this injustice, taking matters into your own hands. You don’t need to be aggressive, like Peter did when Christ was betrayed. You don’t need to be defensive and go into denial, like Peter did when Christ was being prosecuted. You should also learn to behave towards one another as brothers and sisters in Christ the same way, though we shouldn’t mistreat one another as nonbelievers will do (1 Pet 3:8-9)!

Maintaining a Christlike Reputation

Though God will enable you to respond to injustice like Jesus, you will not do so perfectly as Jesus did because you are not perfect like Jesus. So, how should you respond when you fail to respond to injustice in a Christlike way? Consider this fascinating example from the life of Paul. Several years after the resurrection of Christ, the Sanhedrin prosecuted Paul for his gospel ministry. During this trial, they struck him illegally, similarly to how the guard in the palace of Annas had struck Jesus. This time, however, the incident was not spontaneous because the high priest ordered a guard to strike him (Acts 23:2).Paul responded to this abuse with a momentary outburst and said, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” (Acts 23:3). Though what Paul said was true, he did not say this in a Christlike manner. What’s more, he failed to realize that the high priest himself had given the instructions (Acts 23:4). When he learned this, he quickly apologized for his outburst and cited Scripture that pointed out his error (Acts 23:5).Like Paul, you may fall short of the goodness and graciousness of Christ. But when this happens, learn to restore your reputation by apologizing for your wrong words and behavior. Do not justify yourself because you were responding to unjust treatment. No amount of injustice for Christ is enough to justify defensive and revengeful behavior in return. God has called you to behave and speak (or not speak) like Jesus when you encounter unfair treatment.

---

[1] This hearing was a religious trial conducted by Jewish authorities; only John records this initial hearing and it is the only hearing that he describes. A second religious trial occurred before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matt 26:57-68, Mark 14:53-65, Luke 22:54), followed by a third trial after sunrise (Matt 27:1, Mark 15:1, Luke 22:66-71). A series of three civil trials also occurred: first before Pilate (Matt 27:2, 11-14 Mark 15:1-5, Luke 23:1-5, John 18:28-38), then before Herod (Luke 23:6-12), and finally before Pilate again (Matt 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13-25, John 18:39-19:16). ^[2] Kenneth O. Gangel, John, vol. 4, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 334. [3] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 1:371-72. ^[4] Gangel, John, 338.