12 18:12So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 18:13First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 18:14It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.
15 18:15Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, 16 18:16but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in. 17 18:17The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” 18 18:18Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
19 18:19The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 18:20Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 18:21Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 18:22When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 18:23Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” 24 18:24Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
25 18:25Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” 26 18:26One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” 27 18:27Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.
28 18:28Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. 29 18:29So Pilate went outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 18:30They answered him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.” 31 18:31Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 18:32This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die.
33 18:33So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 18:34Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 18:35Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 18:36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 18:37Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 18:38Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. 39 18:39But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” 40 18:40They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.
This passage continues the narrative of the greatest tragedy ever enacted in human history, as the only perfect man ever to live is persecuted, hunted, betrayed, and arrested.
Yet, despite, the chaos and treachery, God’s plan was enacted. Jesus stood undefiled, uncorrupted, undissuaded, and undefeated. When the faithful flee, the bold betray, the pure are defiled, and the just are corrupted, Jesus will remain. He will never fail us.
Annas had been high priest from AD 6 to 15, when the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus deposed him. Thus, although John acknowledges that Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was high priest at the time (18:13), John nevertheless refers to Annas as “the high priest” (vv. 15, 16, 19, 22). This is probably analogous to the way ex-presidents of the United States continue to be addressed as “Mr. President” or referred to as “President Bush,” for example, even though someone else currently holds the office.
Anticipating both what will take place and its significance, John reminds his audience of the prophecy spoken by Caiaphas about how advantageous it would be for one man to die for the people (v. 14; cf. 11:49–52).
18:15–18 Peter’s First Denial. In the first half of the book of Acts, Peter played a leading role among the followers of Jesus. His speech in Acts 1 led to the selection of Matthias as the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15–26). Peter then preached on the day of Pentecost in chapter 2 and was the apostles’ spokesman again in chapters 3 and 4. The Lord confronted the sin of Ananias and Sapphira through Peter in chapter 5, and Peter remained at the center of the narrative of Acts until the focus shifted to Paul in the latter part of the book.
There is no indication anywhere that Peter sought to suppress the story of how he had denied Jesus three times. We all sin, but whose sin can be compared to Peter’s? The Lord Jesus himself—the most important person ever to live—was on trial, and Peter, one of his closest disciples, denied him three times when he was at his most lonely and vulnerable moment. And for the rest of Peter’s life—indeed, for the rest of history—his greatest failure has been rehearsed at every telling of the story most central to our faith.
John tells us in 18:15 how Peter got in position for the unfolding scene. With another disciple, he followed Jesus. Since John has no problem naming other disciples, it would seem that once again he himself is the unnamed disciple. It would fit what we see elsewhere for Peter and John to be together (cf. Acts 3:1), and if this disciple is John, then we know where his Gospel got these seemingly inconsequential details. The fact that this other disciple was known to the high priest does not add to our understanding of what happens to Jesus but is the kind of personal, eyewitness detail that one who participated in the events might continue to relate.
In 18:15–16 John relates how this unnamed disciple was able to gain access for Peter to the high priest’s courtyard. The other disciple speaks to the servant girl at the door in verse 16, and in verse 17 the servant girl at the door speaks to Peter, asking him if he is not one of the disciples of Jesus. Whereas only a few verses earlier Jesus had courageously asserted, “I Am” (vv. 5–6), Peter “negates” himself, contradicts his whole life, and forsakes his deepest commitments with the words, “I am not” (v. 17).
Why would Peter do this? Did he have time to rationalize, or did he only react? Surely Peter had no reasonable hope of freeing Jesus, of breaking him out, because Jesus had just willingly given himself up (vv. 4–9). Peter had to have known that, even if he were to find a way to rescue Jesus, Jesus would likely have refused any chance to escape. Thus Peter’s denial cannot be justified as the subterfuge of a spy infiltrating enemy territory.
Nor is it likely that Peter had engaged in a philosophical reflection that led him to conclude that if Jesus would not resist, Peter had no obligation to tell the truth. Such a conclusion would be impossible for him at that moment, and, in view of the foundational ethical and philosophical assumptions of that time, it would not seem to be a plausible theory.
We seem to be left with the conclusion that Peter’s instinct for self-preservation overrode his commitment to Jesus and the truth. In his fear and confusion and shock at these unexpected developments, Peter failed. He denied his connection to Jesus.
18:19–24 Jesus and Annas. When Annas asks Jesus about his disciples and his teaching in verse 19, it seems likely—given his worldly expectations of what Jesus seeks—that he wants to know what kind of force Jesus has gathered and what kind of instructions he has given them. Is there an organized army, a chain of command with regimental divisions, instructions concerning how to move and when?
Jesus responds in verse 20 by asserting that he has spoken openly, in public, to all who could hear; his ministry has not been conducted in secret. What he has said, he has said to all. Annas is fishing, but Jesus says there are no fish in that pond. To back up his claim to innocence, Jesus invites Annas to verify his claims by asking anyone who has heard him teach (v. 21). We then see two alternative ways of looking at the world (v. 22). John clearly presents the official’s slapping of Jesus as an offensive disregard for the dignity of Jesus that results from a hasty, mistaken conclusion. From the official’s point of view, however, it is the dignity of the high priest that has been disregarded. Jesus challenges the justice of the official’s slap (v. 23), maintaining that he has done nothing wrong and should not have been struck.
Unbeknownst to the official and the high priest, the dignity of the high priest derives from the dignity of Jesus. The high priest holds a sacred office only because God is sacred. The sacred and holy God stands trial before those made sacred by what he has given them, and they hold their own dignity more dearly than his. Indeed, they do not even acknowledge his identity.
They hate God and slap Jesus because what God has made sacred—the high priesthood—is more precious to them than God himself. This is a common error with God’s gifts. God gives a good and holy gift, such as sex, authority, or the stewardship of resources, and humans exalt their pleasure, their power, and their money over God himself. They refuse to worship God because they are intent on making idols of his gifts.
Annas has tried to elicit incriminating evidence from Jesus but has failed. His henchmen have treated Jesus as a criminal who disrespects authority, and Jesus has rebuked them with moral authority. His efforts fruitless, his justice challenged, Annas can only bundle Jesus off to Caiaphas.
18:25–27 Denials Two and Three. With Jesus on the way to Caiaphas, John shifts back to Peter, who in verse 25 is still standing with the enemy, warming himself at their fire. The question posed to him in verse 17 confronts him word-for-word in verse 25, and this time Peter denies his discipleship before again “negating” himself with the words “I am not.” Peter can assert that he is no disciple of Jesus, but his insistence will not change reality. Reality confronts Peter in verse 26 when a relative of Malchus (cf. v. 10) asks about having seen Peter in the garden. When Peter denies this, the rooster spoken of by Jesus (cf. 13:38) crows on cue.
Why is Peter denying Jesus? For physical safety? To prolong his life? To maintain his freedom from incarceration? To protect his family (cf. Mark 1:30)? If Peter could see clearly, if he could rightly estimate what matters and what is valuable, he would know that it would be better for him to be in danger than for him to deny his Lord. Better for him to be jailed, even killed; better for his sons that their father die a heroic martyr than live as a coward. Better for his wife to be the widow of a noble man who kept faith with the one who matters most than to have a husband alive because he denied Jesus. Better for his life to end in honor than to continue in shame.
Peter failed to see clearly. The moment was too much for him. He denied the Lord, and so he lived the rest of his life with the story being told over and over, down to this day, long after his death. Perhaps Peter had not thought it through. Perhaps if he had, he would have done better. It had seemed from his earlier certainty (even saying that he was ready to die for Jesus) that he had thought it through (John 13:37). But in the moment, what mattered most was not what weighed most on his heart.
18:28–40 Jesus and Pilate. While Peter was denying Jesus for the second and third times (vv. 25–27), Jesus arrived at the home of Caiaphas, and from there he is sent to the Roman governor, Pilate (v. 28). The amount of time these events have taken to unfold is indicated in John’s note: “It was early morning” (v. 28).
From the Passover meal, Jesus and his disciples had gone to the garden, where Jesus was arrested. Jesus has had a sleepless night of interrogation, being transferred from one place to another. Thus the exhaustion of an all-nighter can be tallied with the list of difficulties Jesus underwent.
John highlights another point of irony in the second half of verse 28. The opponents of Jesus are in the process of bringing about the fulfillment of the Passover by having Jesus put to death. Jesus is the Lamb of God (1:29, 36), and when he dies with unbroken bones, John will assert that the pattern of the Passover Lamb has been fulfilled in the death of Jesus (19:36; cf. Ex. 12:46; Ps. 34:20). Yet here in John 18:28 the enemies of Jesus refuse to enter the governor’s headquarters because doing so would make them unclean. They seek to be pure for the Passover even as they reject its fulfillment.
The opponents of Jesus have missed the whole point of the celebration of the Passover meal. The purpose of Passover was to point forward to a new-exodus salvation that would eclipse the exodus from Egypt in its significance for God’s people. In other words, the Passover pointed forward to the salvation God is about to accomplish in Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7).
By rejecting Jesus, the chief priests and Pharisees and all the Jews aligned with them have rejected God. By rejecting Jesus, they reject the salvation God accomplishes in him in fulfillment of the Passover. Their rejection of both God and the Passover’s fulfillment empties of any significance their concern for ritual purity. They disregard what matters most as they show concern for something that does not matter at all apart from its greater significance.
When Pilate accommodates their concern for cleanliness and goes out to ask what charge they have against Jesus (John 18:29), rather than answering the question they appeal to their own certitude (v. 30), as though that should be enough for Pilate. Perhaps reflecting his own uncertainty, Pilate urges them to deal with Jesus themselves according to their own law. The Jews reject this because the Romans do not permit them to practice capital punishment (v. 31). John sees this exchange as bringing about the fulfillment of what Jesus had said about how he would be lifted up (v. 32; cf. 12:32–33).
John does not note where Pilate got the idea to ask Jesus if he was the “King of the Jews” (18:33). Once Pilate has asked, however, Jesus asks him for the source of his question (v. 34). Perhaps rumors growing from expectations and hopes had reached Pilate (cf. 6:15), or perhaps the accusers of Jesus had communicated their concerns to Pilate. Rather than answer Jesus directly, Pilate refers to the fact that the chief priests and Jews have handed Jesus over to him and follows with a question as to what Jesus has done (18:35). This may indicate that the charge had come from the accusers of Jesus.
In his reply (v. 36) Jesus manages to alleviate Pilate’s concern while not denying his identity as the true king of Israel. He does so by explaining that his servants are not fighting because his kingdom is not the earthly kind. This addresses Pilate’s worldly concerns. He wants to avoid a rebellion by minimizing riots among the Jews. He is concerned about Rome and his status in the empire. Jesus notes that his followers have not fought and thereby satisfies Pilate’s concerns.
Pilate recognizes that Jesus has not denied the charge and follows up on his initial question (v. 37a). In his reply, Jesus seems to say that kingship is not his concern, stressing that his purpose in life is to bear witness to the truth (v. 37b), asserting that everyone who is of the truth hears his voice (v. 37c). Jesus is the truth (14:6), and his sheep hear his voice (10:3, 16). Everyone taught of the Father comes to Jesus (6:45).
Pilate shows that he is deaf to Jesus and to the truth when he asks, “What is truth?” (18:38). It seems anachronistic to understand Pilate’s question as akin to postmodern cynicism about absolute truth. He may be genuinely puzzled, asking a real question, but if so his responsibilities crowd out his opportunity to pursue the matter.
Pilate tells the Jews that he has no concerns about Jesus (v. 38). This seems to indicate that Pilate does not view Jesus as a threat to Rome. Pilate then brings up the Passover tradition of the release of a prisoner and asks if they would like to have Jesus released (v. 39). Rather than Jesus, however, the Jews cry out for Barabbas. John notes that, unlike Jesus, Barabbas was in reality a guilty man. Barabbas is called a “robber” in the ESV, with a footnote stating that the term could also be rendered “insurrectionist.” John likely means to evoke this connotation, as it would portray the Jews’ crying for the release of a man guilty of the very crime of which they accuse Jesus. The Jews ask Pilate to crucify Jesus as a threat to Rome (cf. 11:48–51), but their desire for Barabbas to be released shows they are no more concerned for Rome than they are for justice. Their hatred of Jesus has blinded them to justice, truth, goodness, and beauty.
1 Greek Ioudaioi probably refers here to Jewish religious leaders, and others under their influence, in that time; also verses 14, 31, 36, 38
2 Or bondservants; also verse 26
3 Greek the praetorium
4 Or an insurrectionist
1 David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 171.