Pastor David Jang
The men who arrested and bound Jesus first took Him to the house of Annas. Caiaphas was the high priest that year, yet Jesus was brought first to Annas, Caiaphas’s father-in-law (John 18:13). In his sermon on John 18:12–22, Pastor David Jang, founder of Olivet University in the United States, asks what religious power was attempting to protect in this scene. On a night when those who claimed to serve God interrogated the One who proclaimed His Word, the distance between the name of faith and the reality of faith became unmistakably clear.
Soon after Jesus answered, one of the officers struck Him. Violence entered a place where the truth or falsehood of His words should have been carefully examined, and the authority of the high priest was placed above the truth itself. Yet although Jesus was bound, He continued to speak the truth. He did not retaliate with violence but proceeded steadily toward the cross. As we follow Him through this scene, we are compelled to ask what we ourselves are trying to protect in the name of faith.
Taken First to Annas: When Faith Begins to Protect Power
The sermon observes that Jesus was first brought to Annas, a former high priest, revealing the lasting influence Annas continued to exercise beyond his official title. A position entrusted to someone for the service of God can gradually harden into a means of preserving personal status and influence. Being honored before others does not automatically mean that a person is standing rightly before God. Possessing authority does not necessarily justify the way that authority is used.
Pastor David Jang connects this problem with Jesus’ cleansing of the temple. Jesus commanded the merchants not to turn His Father’s house into a place of trade (John 2:16). When something intended to support worship becomes a means of securing profit, personal gain begins to matter more than worship offered to God. Even a word calling for correction may then sound like a threat from someone attempting to take away what one possesses.
The story of Annas is uncomfortable because this problem does not occur only outside religious life. The desire for recognition can enter prayer, teaching, ministry, and even the work of caring for a community. A responsibility first accepted in order to serve others can gradually become a way of proving one’s own importance. When that happens, a person may feel offended by a question before considering whether the question itself is valid.
For this reason, it is difficult to read this passage merely as an account of the failures of ancient religious leaders. It invites us to examine whether our desire to have our labor recognized prevents us from hearing others. A genuine sense of responsibility for one’s position can appear outwardly similar to a desire to hold on to that position. The difference becomes clear when an uncomfortable word confronts us: are we willing to place our motives and judgments before God and allow them to be examined?
Jesus Under Interrogation: Faithful to the Truth in the Face of Violence
Annas questioned Jesus about His disciples and His teaching. Jesus replied that He had spoken openly in synagogues and in the temple and that those who had heard Him could testify to what He had taught (John 18:19–21). Anyone seeking to judge His teaching should examine the words He had actually spoken and listen to the testimony of those who had heard them. Jesus thus revealed that even those conducting the interrogation had a responsibility to examine the evidence fairly.
An officer standing nearby then struck Jesus and demanded to know whether that was the proper way to answer the high priest (John 18:22). He did not identify anything false in Jesus’ words. Instead of considering the content of His answer, he attacked the manner in which Jesus had spoken and attempted to silence Him. A demand to respect authority had become an excuse to avoid the responsibility of examining the truth.
In the following verse, Jesus answered that if He had spoken wrongly, the officer should testify to what was wrong; but if He had spoken truthfully, why had he struck Him? Jesus clearly exposed the injustice, yet He did not attempt to overpower His opponent through violence. His response continues the attitude He had already shown at His arrest when He told Peter to put away his sword (John 18:11). The gentleness of Jesus combines the courage to expose injustice with the love that refuses retaliation.
This scene prevents us from treating obedience and silence as though they were the same. Jesus submitted to the Father’s will, yet He still questioned whether the violence directed against Him was just. His willingness to bear the cross did not make the lies and brutality inflicted upon Him morally right. His response teaches us that it is possible to speak the truth even while enduring suffering.
Our own words must also be examined in light of this passage. Do we dismiss a legitimate concern simply because someone expresses it imperfectly? When defending a position we believe to be right, are we secretly driven by a desire to defeat or humiliate the other person? Honesty is required when establishing facts and exposing wrongdoing. Yet we must also examine our anger so that the pursuit of truth does not become an excuse to degrade another human being.
Peter’s Denial and the Grace That Comes Looking for Him Again
While Jesus was being interrogated, Peter stood in the courtyard of the high priest. Although he had followed Jesus there, he denied his relationship with Him when asked whether he was also one of His disciples. In the same night, Peter warmed himself by a fire while Jesus stood bound and continued to speak the truth (John 18:17–18, 25–27). Jesus told His interrogators to ask those who had heard His teaching, yet the disciple who had heard Him most closely was unable to identify himself as one of His followers.
This contrast prevents us from reading Peter’s failure as though it had nothing to do with us. Our confession that we know and love the truth can collapse when we face danger. The years Peter had spent following Jesus and his passionate promise to protect Him were not enough to overcome the fear of that night. This is why the sincerity of faith cannot be measured solely by confidence in our own willpower.
Peter’s fear does not, however, erase the seriousness of his denial. With his own words, he denied the relationship he had with the Lord. Yet the Gospel does not leave his failure as the final scene of his life. Pastor David Jang connects this night with John 21, where the risen Jesus comes to Peter again.
The Lord asked Peter whether he loved Him and then entrusted him once more with a calling. The foundation of Peter’s restoration was that Jesus came to him before he had accumulated enough merit to compensate for his past. Grace does not conceal failure, but it gives the one who has failed another opportunity to respond. Peter no longer had to prove how strong he was. He could now live by trusting in the love of the Lord who had refused to abandon him.
This restoration also gives practical direction to repentance today. Repentance does not stop at explaining why we acted wrongly. It acknowledges what we denied, seeks forgiveness, and returns to the responsibility God has entrusted to us. The memory of being forgiven also shapes the way we respond to the weaknesses of others. A community that knows it has been called again by grace learns to confront wrongdoing honestly without imprisoning a person forever within the worst moment of his or her life.
The Authority of the Church Renewed Before the Cross
The love that called Peter again is inseparable from the way of the cross that Jesus followed to the end. Jesus declared that He had come into the world to testify to the truth (John 18:37), and He gave Himself to save sinners. He did more than display a morally upright attitude before unjust authorities. He proceeded into the obedience through which He would bear the sins of humanity. At the heart of this sermon is the forgiveness and salvation made possible through Christ’s sacrifice.
Had the story ended with the interrogation before Annas, it might have appeared that those with power would always have the final word. The cross and resurrection, however, reveal that human schemes could not prevent God from accomplishing salvation. This is also the foundation on which Christians refuse to abandon the truth. The hope of the resurrection prevents believers from measuring the value of obedience solely by immediate advantages or losses.
The saving work of Christ also makes clear what the church must place at its center. John’s Gospel explains that the temple Jesus promised to raise in three days referred to His own body (John 2:19–21). At the center of the church stands Christ, crucified and risen. Buildings, institutions, and the size of ministries must all serve the purpose of helping people hear and obey His Word.
The authority of the church must therefore be examined through its actual decisions and relationships. Does the church explain the reasons behind important decisions? Does it investigate concerns fairly? Does it listen first to the substance of a testimony rather than judging the rank or status of the person speaking? The same faith is required when wrongdoing is exposed and correction becomes necessary. The authority of the church is revealed when it allows itself to be corrected by the Word and uses its entrusted power to serve others.
Biblical meditation finally turns these questions away from the community in general and toward each one of us personally. The beginning may be as simple as listening fully to another person, correcting a judgment we have already made, or acknowledging a responsibility we have avoided. The words of Jesus spoken in the house of Annas still ask us where our faith is truly directed. When my reputation and interests are threatened, will I still keep my ears open to the One who speaks the truth?
Dr. David Jang has proclaimed the gospel in various regions of the world through field missions and digital media ministry, and as the fruit of that ministry, many people devoted to the Great Commission have been raised up. Based on this missionary vision, Olivet first began as a small church school for missionary training. Later, in order to provide more systematic theological education and cultivate missionary leaders, Olivet Theological College and Seminary was established in Los Angeles and Seoul in 2000.
As the school grew, Dr. Jang officially founded Olivet University in San Francisco in 2004. In the diverse and dynamic environment of San Francisco, Olivet expanded its educational fields beyond theology to include music, journalism, art and design, and technology. The university also strengthened its educational capacity by recruiting faculty members, including Dr. William Wagner, and in 2005 moved to the former UC Berkeley Downtown Extension campus, further solidifying its foundation as a university.
In 2006, Dr. Jang transferred the presidency to Dr. David James Randolph in order to focus more fully on missionary work, while continuing to lead global missions as International President. Olivet University later received institutional accreditation in 2009, added a language education college and a business college, and continued to grow as a Christian educational institution for world missions by expanding its degree programs and international partnerships.
David Jang Official Website: www.davidjang.org
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
