John is the only evangelist who recorded Jesus' interrogation by Annas. It was preliminary to His appearance before Caiaphas and then before the Sanhedrin (v. 24).
John began his account of Jesus' trials with a brief description of His arrest and by identifying the chief religious leaders who examined Him.
18:12 The commander (Gr. chiliarchos, cf. Acts 22:24, 26, 27, 28; 23:17, 19, 22) in view was the officer in charge of the Roman soldiers. He was evidently the person with the most official authority on the scene. However the Jewish officers (i.e., temple police) also played a part in Jesus' arrest. Perhaps John noted that they bound Jesus in view of Isaiah's prophecy that Messiah's enemies would lead Him as a lamb to the slaughter (Isa. 53:7). Jesus' disciples abandoned Him when His enemies took him into custody (cf. Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50).
18:13 The soldiers evidently led Jesus to the residence of the high priest. The location of this building is uncertain, though the traditional site is in the southern part of old Jerusalem just west of the Tyropoeon Valley.536
Both high priests evidently occupied the same building. One was Annas, the former high priest whom the Jews still regarded as the legitimate high priest since the high priesthood under the Mosaic Law was for life. He served as the official high priest from 6 to 15 A.D. when the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus deposed him. Five of Annas' sons plus his son-in-law, Caiaphas, succeeded him in this office.537Consequently it was natural that the Jews regarded Annas as the patriarch and the true high priest and that he continued to exert considerable influence throughout his lifetime. The other high priest was Caiaphas, Annas' son-in-law whom the Romans had placed in the office in 18 A.D. where he remained until 36 A.D. Annas was the first of the two men to interview Jesus.
"That year"refers to the fateful year of Jesus' death (i.e., 33 A.D.).
The High Priests of Israel
(c. 6-36 A.D.)
Annas (c. 6-15 A.D.)
Unofficial high priest with Caiaphas during Jesus' trial (Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24)
Unofficial high priest who, with Caiaphas, tried Peter and John (Acts 4:6)
Eleazar (c. 16-17 A.D.)
Son of Annas whose name does not appear in the New Testament
Caiaphas (c. 18-36 A.D.)
Son-in-law of Annas
Official high priest during Jesus' earthly ministry (Luke 3:2; Matt. 26:3, 57; John 11:49-50)
With Annas tried Peter and John (Acts 4:6)
18:14 John doubtless identified Caiaphas as he did here to remind his readers of the prediction of Jesus' substitute sacrifice (11:50), not just to identify Caiaphas. This identification also makes unnecessary a full recording of the deliberations that led to the Sanhedrin's verdict. That record was already available in the Synoptics and was therefore unnecessary in John's Gospel.
As the other evangelists, John alternated his account of the events surrounding Jesus' religious trial. He described what was happening in the courtyard (vv. 15-18), then what was happening inside (vv. 19-24), then what happened outside again (vv. 25-27). This literary technique contrasts Jesus with Peter.
18:15-16 Evidently Peter and another disciple had followed the arresting party from Gethsemane back into Jerusalem to the high priests' palace (Gr. aule, "court"or "courtyard,"cf. 10:16).
Traditionally commentators have understood the "other disciple"to have been John, the "beloved disciple"(cf. 13:23; 19:26-27; 20:2-9; 21:1, 20-23, 24-25). However because John described this "other disciple"as someone who had a close relationship with the high priest (Gr. gnostos, cf. 2 Kings. 10:11; Ps. 55:13; Luke 2:44) many modern interpreters question the traditional view. It has seemed incredible to some of them that a fisherman from Galilee would have had the close relationship with the high priest (i.e., Caiaphas, v. 13) that this passage presents. Nevertheless it is entirely possible that John as the son of a prosperous fisherman (cf. Mark 1:19-20) did indeed have such a relationship.
"Salome, the mother of John, was a sister of Mary, Jesus' mother (cf. John 19:25 with Mark 15:40), and would have been equally related to Elizabeth, whose husband, Zechariah, was a priest (Luke 1:36)"538
Moreover the New Testament presents Peter and John as having the close relationship that this passage describes (e.g., 13:23-24; 20:2-10; 21:20-24; Acts 3:1, 11; 4:13; et al.). Therefore the traditional view may be correct.539The correct identification of the "other disciple"is not essential to a correct interpretation of the events, however.
18:17 The servant girl recognized the "other disciple"as one of Jesus' disciples. She asked Peter if he was one too, expecting a negative reply as the Greek text makes clear. Her question reflected some disdain for Jesus. Peter succumbed to the pressure of the moment and denied his association with Jesus (13:37). Perhaps what he had done to Malchus made him more eager to blend into his surroundings.
18:18 Peter not only denied Jesus, but He also stood with Jesus' enemies as they warmed themselves in the courtyard of the high priest's large residence. The detail that the fire was a charcoal (Gr. anthrakia) one will feature later in John's narrative (21:9). Such a fire would not have generated much light or heat, so those who wanted to stay warm had to stand close together.
John's version of Peter's denial is quite similar to those of the other Gospel writers, but His revelation of Jesus' interrogation by Annas is unique. None of the other evangelists mentioned it.
18:19 Clearly Annas was the (unofficial) high priest who conducted this initial informal inquiry (cf. v. 24). He probably asked Jesus about His disciples to ascertain the size of His following since one of the religious leaders' chief concerns was the power of Jesus' popularity. Annas' interest in His teachings undoubtedly revolved around who Jesus claimed to be (cf. 7:12, 47; 19:4). Both subjects were significant since many of the Jews suspected Jesus of being a political insurrectionist.
18:20-21 Jesus affirmed that He had always taught openly. He had not promoted sedition secretly. He had no secret teaching to hide. Obviously He was not denying that He had taught His disciples privately. He was assuring Annas that His teachings were not subversive. He did not have two types of teaching, a harmless one for the multitudes and a revolutionary one for his disciples.540He invited Annas to question His hearers, not just His disciples, to determine if He had indeed taught anything for which someone might accuse Him of being disloyal. The testimony of witnesses was an indispensable part of any serious trial in Judaism.
18:22-23 The officer (Gr. hypereton) who struck Jesus was probably one of the Jewish temple police (cf. v. 3). He interpreted Jesus' response as discourteous and used it as an excuse to strike Him. The Greek word rhapismatranslated "blow"(NASB) means a sharp blow with the palm of the hand. Jesus' response to this attack was logical rather than emotional or physical. He simply appealed for a fair trial (cf. Acts 23:2-5). The man who stuck Him was not treating Him fairly. This was a case of police brutality. Jesus had shown no disrespect for Annas.
18:24 Annas could not produce anything for which the Sanhedrin could condemn or even charge Jesus. Therefore he sent Jesus on to Caiaphas. The descriptions of Jesus' hearings in the Gospels alternate between Jesus' interrogations and Peter's denials. It seems clear therefore that Annas and Caiaphas lived and interviewed Jesus in different parts of the same large residence or palace. Caiaphas had to interview Jesus to bring charges against Him before the Sanhedrin since Caiaphas was the current official high priest. John noted that Jesus remained bound as a criminal even though He had done nothing to warrant physical restraint.
John did not record what happened when Jesus appeared before Caiaphas and, later, before the Sanhedrin (cf. Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71). Perhaps he omitted these aspects of Jesus' religious trial because the earlier Synoptic Gospels contained adequate accounts of them. Maybe John considered the meeting of the Sanhedrin that he described in 11:47-53 as Jesus' official condemnation.
John took his readers back to the courtyard where Peter stood warming himself with the high priest's servants and officers (v. 18).
18:25 Under pressure again, Peter denied for a second time that he was one of Jesus' disciples as the "other disciple"was (cf. Matt. 10:33; Luke 12:9). The person who voiced the question was another girl (Matt. 26:71; Mark 14:69).
"John has constructed a dramatic contrast wherein Jesus stands up to his questioners and denies nothing, while Peter cowers before his questioners and denies everything."541
18:26-27 The third questioner was a relative of Malchus whose ear Peter had cut off in Gethsemane (v. 10). Only John recorded the relationship. This fact supports the view that the "other disciple"was John. He knew the relationships of people within the high priest's household.
The accuser also identified Peter as a Galilean (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59). His question expected a positive answer in contrast to the former two that expected a negative answer. It posed the greatest threat to Peter's security. Peter responded by uttering his most vehement denial. Immediately a cock crowed (for the second time, Mark 14:72) fulfilling the prediction that Jesus had spoken just hours earlier (13:38). John also omitted Peter's oaths and curses (cf. Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71), Jesus' convicting look (Luke 22:61), and Peter's bitter tears of contrition (cf. Matt. 26:75; Mark 14:75; Luke 22:62). The effect is that the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction receives the emphasis.
The encouraging record of Peter's restoration to fellowship and usefulness follows in chapter 21.
