John 18 reveals to us the truth about Jesus through the way he responded to his betrayal and arrest in Gethsemane and through the way he responded to his unethical trial before Annas. But as all this was going on, John gives us a parallel perspective about the way that Peter the disciple was responding to these events.

Social pressure reveals the strength of your spiritual resolve.

By paying attention to Peter, we benefit spiritually in three ways. First, we learn even more of the truth about Jesus. Second, we learn more of the truth about Peter. Then third, we learn more of the truth about ourselves, which points us back to the truth about Jesus. The way that Peter responded to the injustice directed towards Jesus teaches us that social pressure reveals the strength of your spiritual resolve.

The trial of Jesus revealed the truth about Peter.

If we’re not careful, we can easily develop an inflated and inaccurate view of the original disciples of Jesus. Yet these men were no different than you or me. They were not some kind of elite super heroes of the faith. They struggled with the same doubts and weaknesses that you and I experience today. Peter demonstrates this in the way that he responded to the suffering of Christ.

He wanted to follow Jesus.

Peter wanted to do the right thing. Hours before, he had bravely announced that he would follow Jesus even to death (John 13:37). Not long after that, he bravely stepped forward to defend Jesus from arrest, striking a man with his sword (John 18:10). To Peter’s credit, he didn’t stop there. Following the arraignment of Jesus, he followed him to the home of Annas where Jesus would undergo his first trial. Only Peter and one other disciple did this, while the others ran away (John 18:15). The other disciples entered the courtyard of Annas though, while Peter remained outside at the gate (John 18:16). Why did this happen?John does not name the “other” disciple, but we can piece together evidence from various places in John’s gospel where he names other disciples but not himself. He refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23, 21:20). Elsewhere he refers to himself as the “other” disciple (John 20:2). Then here he refers to himself as “another” disciple (John 18:15-16). The best conclusion, then, is that the “other” disciple is John himself who wrote this book and witnessed these events for himself.What does it mean, then, that he was “known to the high priest” (John 18:16)? The best explanation seems to be that John was related to the priestly family. His mother, Salome (cf. Matt. 27:56 with Mark 15:40) was a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (cf. John 19:25; Mark 15:40). Since Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist and the wife of Zechariah the priest, then Salome was a cousin to Elizabeth also. This makes it very likely that Zechariah the priest was his uncle. Not just anyone could enter the home of the ruling priestly family. Only those who were closely related, closely associated, or given clear permission could enter. In this case, John appears to have this close relationship, giving him access to the inner courtyard during the trial of Jesus. When he realized that Peter was outside the gate, he requested for the doorkeeper (or security guard of sorts), who was a girl in this case, to let Peter enter. To Peter’s credit, he accepted the offer and entered.After entering, Peter joined a group of people around a charcoal fire. This group consisted of household staff called “servants and officers,” which could refer to people with civil, judicial, or military roles. Ultimately, these people would likely have been present at the arrest in Gethsemane and were on the side of Annas at this moment. At the very least, they seem to have been employed by him.This group gathered around a fire made of coals. Why did they do this? During the Passover season, warm days would become cool nights. This would have been especially true outdoors in a courtyard like this one the side of the elevated Jerusalem hillside. You may be interested to know that this Greek word for “a charcoal fire” (ἀνθρακιά) appears only twice in the New Testament and both in the gospel of John. This is the first instance, and the second instance occurs in John 21:9 when Jesus served the disciples fish which he baked on a charcoal fire. The irony of this is that at the first “charcoal fire” scene, we find Peter denying the Lord while in the second “charcoal fire” scene we find the Lord restoring Peter back to a close relationship with him.

At the first “charcoal fire” scene, we find Peter denying the Lord while in the second “charcoal fire” scene we find the Lord restoring Peter back to a close relationship with him.

You may notice further irony in this first “charcoal fire” episode when you read the way that John described that moment. He said that “it was cold” and “they warmed themselves” (Joh 18:18). This is why I call this study “The Chilling Truth about Peter.” This was more than a cold night in the open air of Jerusalem; it was a cold night in Peter’s heart as he faced the chilling truth about himself. Though he was a man who showed evidence of wanting to follow Jesus to the death, he lacked the inner fortitude to do so.

He was incapable on his own.

Three times in this chapter, we find Peter denying his association with the Lord. At the moment when the Lord was beginning to suffer, Peter turned his back on him.He issued his first denial to a young girl who guarded the gate to the house of Annas (John 18:17). Though many have accused Peter of being afraid of a little girl in this case, I am doubtful that this was his problem. Instead, it seems best to assume that he feared to disclose his association with Jesus over the possibility that this girl would report the news to Annas. Also, it is interesting to know that this girl asked her question in a way that anticipated a negative answer (or at least a reluctant answer). So then, it appears that she may have had a foggy notion that Peter may have been an associate of Jesus, but at the same time she may have doubted her own inclinations. Or, she may have had a hunch that Peter was indeed an associate of Jesus, but by asking him, she was giving him the opportunity to say no and save face since she may have asked this question within the hearing of the others who were standing around the fire.The first denial happened at the start of Jesus’ trial, but the second and third denials happened at the end. He issued his second denial after having heard the trial and then hearing that Annas was about the send Jesus away for an official trial before the actual high priest, Caiaphas (John 18:24). The trial had adjourned, and the people were beginning to move around again, preparing to travel to Caiaphas. At this moment, another one of the servants or officials standing by the fire asked if Peter was a follower of Jesus (John 18:25). Once again, this person asked in a way that expected Peter to either say “no” or to give a reluctant answer. Once again, Peter said, “No,” but this time John describes his answer in a more dramatic way. He adds the word denied, which means to “deny, disown, or repudiate” someone.Peter issued his third denial not long after this one. This time, another person at the fire asked a more specific question. He asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” (John 18:26). This question becomes more riveting when you realize that the person who asked it was a relative of Malchus, the man whose ear Peter had cut off. Also, unlike the previous two questioners who expected “no” for an answer, this person asked with a measure of confidence and expected “yes” for an answer. Nevertheless, Peter denied his association with Jesus for a third time (John 18:27).At that precise moment (notice the word immediately), a rooster crowed in the background, bringing a close to this dark, dark night of failure for Peter (John 18:27). This night revealed the truth about Peter. It revealed that despite his brave words and actions for Jesus, he was personally unable to follow through on his intentions. Though he had wanted to be faithful to Jesus, he was unable to follow through in the moment of hardship and injustice.

Despite his brave words and actions for Jesus, he was personally unable to follow through on his intentions.

Like Peter, it is one thing for you and me in the safety of our church gatherings to resolve to identify with Jesus in our public lives in a secular world. But it is another thing entirely to follow through on that commitment when we step into class or into the job site.

The denials of Peter revealed the truth about Jesus.

Like everything else in this book called the Gospel of John, the failures of Peter do more than reveal the truth about Peter. They reveal the truth about Jesus as well.

He had protected Peter in advance.

When you read that a relative of Malchus recognized Peter, you can imagine what Peter must have felt. Perhaps his pulse raced, his mind froze in place, and his mouth went dry. How would you feel if you had just cut off a man’s ear and his family member found you, accompanied by a group of his friends –many of them armed with weapons? This was a scary spot for Peter. These men could easily have returned the favor to Peter and cut his ear of also. They could have rushed him into a trial of his own.But none of this happened. Why? Because as Jesus surrendered to his own unlawful arrest in Gethsemane, and when Peter lunged forward to rescue his Lord from harm, Jesus responded in two important ways. First, he protected his captor from danger by ordering Peter to stand down and by healing his captor’s ear to a normal, healthy condition (Luke 22:49-51). By doing this, he also protected Peter from harm. Even if the relative of Malchus had refused to accept Peter’s denial and had doubled down on identifying him instead, there was nothing he could do to Peter because he had no evidence of wrongdoing against Peter. The ear of Malchus was right where it should have been, on his head with neither a scratch nor a scar from the wound which Peter had inflicted.

With no evidence to prove the crime, this man could not blame Peter with assault.

With no evidence to prove the crime, this man could not blame Peter with assault. Nevertheless, though Jesus had protected Peter in this moment by performing a miracle, Peter denied his Master anyway. What failure! From the opposite perspective, however, you should also observe that though Jesus knew that Peter would deny him, he protected him from this danger anyway. What love!

He knew Peter better than Peter knew himself.

From Peter’s three denials, you also learn another important truth about Jesus. Jesus knew Peter better than Peter knew himself. When Peter had bravely told Jesus he would follow him to death, only hours before, Jesus replied by saying this: “Will you lay down your life for my sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38).

Peter knew what he wanted to do and what he intended to do, and that was to follow Jesus. But Jesus knew better. He knew what Peter would do in reality.

Peter knew what he wanted to do and what he intended to do, and that was to follow Jesus. But Jesus knew better. He knew what Peter would do in reality. He knew this so specifically that he told Peter that he would deny him three times and that he would do this before the rooster crowed the next morning. How amazing is that? By giving this prophecy, Jesus not only proved his omniscience (his divine characteristic of knowing all things), but he proved his superior and personal knowledge and understanding of Peter. This reveals that Jesus knew Peter better than Peter knew himself. Though Peter disagreed with Jesus about this, he proved to be wrong and he proved Jesus to be right.What can we learn from this passage ourselves? What does the chilling truth about Peter teach us?The way that you respond to the social, secular, unjust pressure of this world reveals the strength of your spiritual resolve. How well does your faith in Christ and determination to follow him transfer from the times you spend together with your church and the times you are on your own out there somewhere in the cold and chilly darkness of this world? Do you calmly and gladly identify with Jesus when people ask you questions about God and about biblical, Christian values? Do you faithfully share the gospel to those who show interest, even when it may be an unpopular thing to do? Or do you choose to blend in to your surroundings like a chameleon blends in to a tree, hoping to avoid the suffering that may come your way for being a Christian? Do you slink into the shadows like Peter?Learn to trust what Jesus teaches instead of your own perspective. The four gospels give us multiple examples of when Peter disagreed with Jesus or attempted to correct him. Jesus knew that Peter would deny him three times, yet Peter disagreed. A wise follower of Jesus Christ will learn to follow Jesus by paying close attention to what Jesus teaches us in Scripture and following that teaching closely rather than relying on your personal feelings, commitments, and willpower. Learn to act upon what Jesus says, not upon what you feel – even when these two things contradict one another. Then learn to depend upon Jesus to enable you to understand what he teaches and to follow him with his strength and resolve, not your own.The chilling truth about Peter reveals the same cold facts about yourself. When you set out to follow Jesus, you need to warm your hands and heart at his feet, soaking in his teaching with a humble heart of trust and not with an arrogant heart of unthinking bravery. Without Jesus, you are nothing – just as Peter was nothing the night that Jesus was taken away from him. But as you follow Jesus closely and humbly in your heart, go forward into a world that is opposed to Jesus and calmly, courageously identify with him. After all, he suffered for you, so you should be willing to suffer for him in return.