John 18:12-27

TRIAL BY THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES

Text: .John 18:12-27

12

So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him,

13

and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

14

Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

15

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;

16

but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

17

The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

18

Now the servants and officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

19

The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.

20

Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.

21

Why askest thou me? ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.

22

And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

23

Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

24

Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

25

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.

26

One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

27

Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.

Queries

a.

Why did they take Jesus to Annas first?

b.

Why did Peter gain entrance into the court of the high priest's palace and then deny that he knew Jesus?

c.

Why did Annas ask Jesus concerning His disciples and His teaching?

Paraphrase (Harmony)

So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, whowas high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest; but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching. Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I even taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said. And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and sat with the officers to see the end. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them, warming himself in the light of the fire.
Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. But afterward came two, and said, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands, And not even so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.
And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, He hath spoken blasphemy: What further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death. And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. Then did they spit in his face and buffet him, cover his face. And some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? And the officers received him with blows of their hands. And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.
And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; and seeing Peter warming himself, as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking steadfastly upon him, said, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus. But he denied, before them all saying, woman I know him not I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, Of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean, for thy speech maketh thee known. But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. and straightway the second time the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said unto him, Before the cock crow twice this day thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: and they led him away into their council, saying, If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.
Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? See thou to it. And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them in the treasury, since it the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

Summary

By cruel and evil men Jesus is tried illegally, coerced, mocked, brutalized and condemned without proof or cause. The Jewish authorities had already condemned Him before trial. At the same trials, His most steadfast disciple denies Him.

Comment

Jesus is led first to the palace of the high priest which was probably in, or at least very near, the temple courts. Here He was subjected to a sort of preliminary questioning by Annas, father-in-law of the present high priest Caiaphas. Ever since the Romans had occupied Palestine the high priests no longer held office for life as the O.T. Law legislated. Jewish high priests were now appointed by the Romans as they saw fit. According to history Annas had been high priest and had ruled from 7-14 A.D. when he was deposed by the Roman procurator, Gratus, and Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was appointed and ruled from 18-36 A.D. Five sons of Annas ruled as high priest during this final period of Jewish national life. Just why Jesus was taken to Annas first we do not know. Conjecturally speaking we would guess that it had something to do with the pride and vain glory of Annas himself that would cause him to demand Jesus be brought to him first. Perhaps Annas really pulled all the strings in the office and his son-in-law Caiaphas was merely the puppet high priest (cf. Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6).

It seems highly probable that Annas and Caiaphas would both reside in the palace of the high priest. Therefore just as soon as Annas was through with his questioning they took Jesus immediately into the quarters of Caiaphas. From there He was taken into the council chambers of the Sanhedrin. The harmonized account of all the Jewish trials indicates that they all transpired in one place for Peter did not leave the same courtyard. The palace would be built on the same order as most expensive homes in Jerusalem, around an open court. The rooms were in the rectangle opening into the inside court. The hall leading from the front door to this court was called the porch. The gallery connecting these rooms surrounded the court and was a little higher than the court, although not like a second story.

John does not give us any information on the trial before Caiaphas and the one before the Sanhedrin. He supplies what the Synoptics do notthe questioning before Annas. John seems to be that other disciple of John 18:16 and he was an eyewitness to the questioning by Annas. Some think this other disciple was not John but one who dwelt at Jerusalem and who, not being a Galilean, could enter the palace without suspicion. But John states that the other disciple was known to the high priest and his servants and was therefore allowed certain liberties others were not allowed. We might guess that John, being the son of a well-to-do fisherman, would have been patronized by the high priest. The authorities would want the influence of the well-to-do businessmen.

Hendriksen says of Annas that He was very proud, exceedingly ambitious, and fabulously wealthy. His family was notorious for its greed. The main source of his wealth seems to have been a goodly share of the proceeds from the price of sacrificial animals, which were sold in the Court of the Gentiles. By him the house of prayer had been turned into a den of robbers. Even the Talmud declares: -Woe to the family of Annas! Woe to the serpent-like hisses! (probably the whisperings of Annas and the members of his family, seeking to bribe and influence the judges).

The reason that John makes the parenthetical notice concerning Caiaphas in John 18:14 is because of the significance of his statement that it was expedient for one man to die for the whole nation (cf. our comments on John 11:49-52). He had been planning the death of Christ for a long time and he and his father-in-law were two of a kind.

The discerning reader will notice right away the differences in reporting the denials of Peter in the Synoptics and in John's gospel. There can be no doubt that all four writers expect three denials. Hendriksen offers the following solution to the differences in the four accounts: ... he (John) also reports on three denials, but counts differently, splitting up into two denials that which by the others is considered the third denial. In the latter case, what by the others is presented as the third denial is by John counted as the second and the third. That would harmonize as follows:

1st denialMatthew 26:69-70 Mark 14:66-68 Luke 22:56-57 John 18:15-18

2nd denialMatthew 26:71-72 Mark 14:69-70 a Luke 22:58 John 18:25

3rd denialMatthew 26:73-74 Mark 14:70 b - Mark 14:72 Luke 22:59-60 John 18:26-27

R. C. Foster, in his syllabus on the Life of Christ, explains the challenges and denials in this way: The accounts are agreed as to the first challenge. Mark says the same maid gave the second; Matthew says another woman; Luke, a man; John, a group. Evidently when the portress saw Peter out in the hall leading to the front door, she left her post and challenged him again. Another maid joined her in it; then a man servant. Peter retreated before this attack to the campfire and there a whole group added their accusation to those of the three trailing him. The second and third denials represent a succession of attacks. Peter, assailed on all sides, repeatedly denied. Mark indicates this by the very graphic and exact imperfect tense, -He kept on denying.-' In the third denial, Matthew and Mark say a group; Luke, another man; John, a kinsman of Malchushere again a succession of accusations and denials occurred.

Why was Peter in there? Why, after having entered, did He deny Jesus? We cannot be sure. It does not seem reasonable, however, to think of Peter's denials as expressions of cowardice when he bravely entered, so to speak, the lion's den. If Peter was a coward, why did he walk right into the midst of the arresting officers? And why, if he was a coward, did he not bolt and run when challenged the first timewhy did he stay on? We believe the exact opposite of cowardice may have moved Peter to get into the palace of the high priest to courageously spy out the possibilities of counter-attack. He may even have had ideas of fighting to free Jesus there in the palace. We must remember that Peter was a rough and rugged fisherman. He was used to danger of life and limb. His denials were probably to conceal his association with Jesus until he could spy out the information needed to carry out a rescue later or until an opportune time afforded itself when he could effect a rescue there in the courtyard. Whatever his reason for denying that he knew Jesus the denial was wrong. If he denied to gain information to use in a struggle of force later it was wrong for as Jesus told Pilate later, and had told Peter earlier, His kingdom was not one of carnal warfare. The sword was not to be used. Christ must suffer. He must drink the cup the Father had given Him. Remember that once before when Jesus told the impetuous Peter He must suffer and be killed, Peter boldly said he would fight to the death for his Master, It was then that Jesus called Peter, Satan, because Peter did not realize the nature of the Messiah or the Messianic kingdom. We believe the gospel records indicates these men would have fought to the death for the worldly type of Messiah and Messianic kingdom they had envisioned, but when they saw that their Master was submitting to humiliation and death like a sheep led to the slaughter, they had no other recourse but to go away in despondency. The transformation that came in the lives of the disciples after the resurrection of Christ is another story.
Now the trials of Jesus have been divided into two sections: (a) the ecclesiastical trialsbefore Annas; before Caiaphas and the elders; and before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin; and (b) the civil trialsbefore Pilate; before Herod; and back to Pilate.
John omits all but a brief notice of the two trials before Caiaphas and concerns himself with the preliminary questioning before Annas and the trials before Pilate. We shall comment only on the trials recorded by John.
There are many illegal aspects of the arrest and trial of Jesus Christ. We recommend for a more detailed study of the subject a book entitled The Trial of Jesus Christ, by Frank J. Powell, an English Magistrate, published by Eerdmans. For a devotional study of the arrest, trials and crucifixion we recommend a book entitled, The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ, by James Stalker, pub. Zondervan.
Jesus was tried illegally at night; His arrest came by bribery; He was forced to testify against Himself; He was sentenced the very same night which was illegal; He was coerced and beaten during the trial but the most atrocious part of the trial was the prejudice, bigotry and malice aforethought of the judges. As Hendriksen says, it was not a trial, but a plot to murder Jesus.

Annas (John 18:19) asks Jesus concerning his disciples, and of his teaching. Exactly what Annas asked is not certain, but it appears that he wanted some preliminary confession that Jesus by his teaching and his disciples was inciting the public to treason. Annas could use such a confession when he takes the Nazarene before Pilate. After all, had not the Nazarene taught that He was King of the Jews and that He was about to establish a kingdom, His disciples taught the same thing.

There were times when Jesus taught His disciples privately but what He taught them then He had already taught publicly. He taught in the temple courts and in the synagogues. He taught in the streets and in the fields. He taught on the mountain sides and on the sea shores. There were always plenty of Pharisees or other authorities present when Jesus taught His doctrines of the kingdom and the Messiah. They could not trap Him this way. They were really wanting Him to incriminate Himself with some confession of wrong.
But Jesus turns the tables. He demands that they produce witnesses to testify. He has no secrets to conceal. These judges knew that they had no evidence to present against Him. The demand of Jesus that they bring witnesses to testify brings their lack of evidence into the open.
The Lord had no more than finished the words when one of the officers of the temple guard struck Him across the mouth with his open hand. Either this officer took it upon himself to strike the prisoner or he was encouraged by the high priest to do so. The real High Priest was scornfully rebuked with, Answerest thou the high priest so?

Jesus shows the utter disregard of His judges for fairness, legality, mercy or truth when He answers, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? He demands again that valid testimony be brought into the trial and that He shall not be judged and coerced with violence before some evidence is heard. The authorities had no evidence. They were not interested in evidence anyway. They had already made up their minds to kill Him regardless of the evidence. They would later bribe witnesses to testify, but even the bribed witnesses could not agree in their testimony!
While Peter was in the midst of denying Jesus with oaths and curses he suddenly saw the eyes of his tormentors turned away from him toward the gallery of the palace. They were looking at Jesus, who was now being led, amidst blows and curses, across the courtyard to either Caiaphas-' quarters or a guard-room where He was to be kept for a few hours until a later questioning by the Sanhedrin. As Jesus stepped out of Annas-' quarters onto the gallery His ear had caught the oaths and curses of Peter and hurt deep in His heart He turned around in the direction of Peterat the same moment the cock crowed and Peter turnedand they looked one another full in the face. Soul looked into soul. What was in that look of the Master to the one who had denied Him? There may be a world in a look. A look may be more eloquent than a whole volume of words. It may reveal more than the lips can ever utter. One writer has commented that the following may have been in the look of the Master:

(a)

His look was a talisman dissolving the spell in which Peter was then held. Peter was so engrossed in his scheming to rescue Jesus that he needed to be brought to himself again.

(b)

The look of Christ was a mirror in which Peter saw himself. He saw what Christ thought of him. His past confessions and professions of courage and I will fight to the death with you came rushing back upon his mind,

(c)

It was a rescuing look. Had it been an angry look he saw on Christ's face when their eyes met, Peter's fate might have been the same as Judas-'. In that look of an instant Peter saw forgiveness and unutterable love.

We are not sure that Peter saw all this in that one look. But what he did see was enough to cause him to go out and weep bitterly. It may be that Peter's compassion for Christ in His torture and humiliation had something to do with his bitter weeping. No doubt Peter read disappointment in the eyes of Jesus as He looked. No doubt Peter was ashamed of himself when Jesus looked at him. The same Word of God pierces our very souls today in the same manner if we will allow it to do so.

Between this section of the eighteenth chapter (John 18:12-27) and the next section (John 18:28-40) the trials before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin occur. John does not record these trials and when we take up our comments again at John 18:28 it will be where Jesus is led before Pilate for the first time.

Quiz

1.

Who was Annas and what sort of a person was he?

2.

Who was Caiaphas and what sort of a person was he?

3.

Where would these two have had their residence and what type of a residence would it be?

4.

How was John able to get into the palace?

5.

Why was Peter in the courtyard?

6.

Name some ways in which the trials of Jesus are illegal?

7.

Ofwhat significance was the look Jesus gave to Peter?