28Jesus’ Trial; Peter’s Denial  (John 18:12–27)

So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” Now the slaves and the officers were standing there, having made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter was also with them, standing and warming himself. The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.” When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. (18:12–27)

Throughout his gospel, John portrays the majesty and glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. The prologue declares Him to be God the Son (1:1), who enjoys intimate fellowship with the Father (1:2) and is self-existent (1:4), the Creator (1:3), and the Word who became flesh and manifested God’s glory (1:14). John the Baptist, the greatest man who had lived up to his time (Matt. 11:11), acknowledged that Jesus was superior to him (1:15, 27). The apostle John also records Jesus’ omniscience (1:48; 2:24–25; 16:30), sinlessness (8:46), eternity (1:1–2), union with the Father (10:30, 38; 12:45), and miraculous signs (2:1–11; 4:46–54; 5:1–9; 6:1–13, 16–21;9:1–7; 11:1–45; 21:6–11).

Even in his account of Jesus’ betrayal and arrest, John portrays Jesus’ dignity, courage, and complete mastery of the situation (see the exposition of 18:1–11 in the previous chapter of this volume). The present passage finds the Lord in the custody of His enemies, on trial for His life. But even in such seemingly degrading circumstances, John still managed to exalt Him. The apostle did so by juxtaposing the accounts of the Lord’s initial hearing before Annas and Peter’s denials. Both scenes took place at the same time and John, under the Spirit’s inspiration, wove them into one dramatic narrative.

The interplay of the two dramas brings into sharp focus opposite truths that are foundational to all of Christian doctrine: the glory of Christ and the sinfulness of man. Those truths are evident from the contrast between Christ’s faithfulness and Peter’s faithlessness; His courage and Peter’s cowardice; His sacrificial love and Peter’s self-preserving lies.

The drama unfolds in four acts: it opens with the first act of Jesus’ trial, followed by act one of Peter’s denial. The scene then shifts to the second act of Jesus’ trial, and then concludes with the second and final act of Peter’s denial.

JESUS’ TRIAL: ACT ONE

So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. (18:12–14)

As noted in the previous chapter of this volume, the arresting party consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. The detachment from the Roman cohort that was stationed in Jerusalem during Passover season was accompanied by the cohort’s commander, the Roman tribune (Gk. chiliarchos; commander of a thousand”). The officers of the Jews (members of the temple police force) were also accompanied by some of their superiors (Luke 22:52). The presence of high-ranking officials reveals the explosiveness of the situation. Both the Romans and the Jews feared that arresting Jesus might spark a riot by the militantly nationalistic crowds that had hailed Him as the Messiah only a few days earlier.

Jesus had just displayed His supernatural power by saying His divine name (after which the entire multitude collapsed on the ground) and restoring Malchus’s severed ear (18:6; Luke 22:51). Incredibly, the soldiers and temple policemen acted as if nothing miraculous had happened and mechanically carried out their orders. Their stubborn obtuseness graphically illustrates the terrible power of sin and Satan to blind the minds and harden the hearts of the unregenerate (2 Cor. 4:4). They are literally “dead in [their] trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1).

Having formally arrested Jesus, the soldiers and police bound Him. This probably was standard procedure when making an arrest, but it also suggests a deeper significance. Just as Isaac (Gen. 22:9) and the Old Testament sacrifices (Ps. 118:27) were bound to the altar, so also was the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice.

After seizing Jesus, they led Him to Annas first. This preliminary hearing, recorded only by John, marked the first of the three phases of Jesus’ religious trial before the Jewish authorities. The second phase was before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57–68; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:54); the third was after sunrise the next morning as the authorities confirmed the decision reached at the earlier hearing (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66–71). The Lord’s civil trial also had three phases: before Pilate (Matt. 27:2, 11–14; Mark 15:1–5; Luke 23:1–5; John 18:28–38); before Herod (Luke 23:6–12); and then before Pilate again (Matt. 27:15–26; Mark 15:6–15; Luke 23:13–25; John 18:39–19:16). (For further information about Jesus’ trials, see Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels [Chicago: Moody, 1979], 329–37.)

Although he no longer held office at the time, Annas was the most powerful figure in the Jewish hierarchy. He had been the high priest from A.D. 6 to A.D. 15, when he was removed from office by Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor as governor. He could still properly carry the title of high priest (vv. 15, 16, 19, 22), in much the same way that former presidents of the United States are still referred to as president after they leave office. Annas’s title, however, was more than a mere courtesy. Many Jews, resentful of the Romans’ meddling in their religious affairs, still considered Annas to be the true power (especially since according to the Mosaic law high priests served for life; cf. Num. 35:25).

Further, after his removal from office, five of Annas’s sons and one of his grandsons served as high priest. He was also the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year (i.e., at that time; John is not implying that the high priests served for only one year). Thus, Leon Morris concurs, “There is little doubt but that … the astute old man at the head of the family exercised a good deal of authority. He was in all probability the real power in the land, whatever the legal technicalities” (The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 749). The New Testament places the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry “in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Luke 3:2; cf. Acts 4:6), as though they jointly held the office.

Annas was a proud, ambitious, and notoriously greedy man. Evidently a significant source of his income came from the concessions in the temple. He received a share of the proceeds from the sale of sacrificial animals; frequently those brought by the people would be rejected and those for sale at the temple (for exorbitant prices) would be approved as an offering. Annas also profited from the fees the money changers charged to exchange foreign currency into the Jewish money that alone could be used to pay the temple tax (cf. 2:14). So infamous was his greed that the outer courts of the temple, where those transactions took place, became known as the Bazaar of Annas (see Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 1:371–72).

Annas had a special hatred for Jesus, who had twice disrupted his business operations by cleansing the temple (John 2:13–16; Matt. 21:12–13). Perhaps he had Jesus brought to him because he “wanted to be the first to gloat over the capture of this disturbing Galilean” (William Barclay, The Gospel of John, vol. 2 [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 264).

John’s parenthetical note that Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people refers to the incident recorded in 11:49–52:

Joseph Caiaphas had been appointed high priest in A.D. 18 by Valerius Gratus, the same Roman prefect who had deposed his father-in-law Annas three years earlier. He remained in office until A.D. 36 when the Romans removed him. Caiaphas’s tenure as high priest was one of the longest in the first century, which reveals his cunning and opportunistic nature. That he proposed killing Jesus to preserve his and the Sanhedrin’s power (cf. 11:48) demonstrates his utter ruthlessness.

With Jesus in the custody of His enemies, the scene now shifts to Peter.

PETER’S DENIAL: ACT ONE

Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” Now the slaves and the officers were standing there, having made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter was also with them, standing and warming himself. (18:15–18)

Despite his show of bravado in attacking and wounding Malchus, Peter had fled along with the rest of the disciples after Jesus’ arrest (Matt. 26:56). But he had managed to regain his composure and now was following Jesus and the arresting party—albeit at a distance (Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54). Peter was not alone; another disciple had also mastered his fear and turned back with him. Some identify this unnamed disciple as Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus, but neither is a likely candidate. Neither one was with the Lord in the upper room (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17–18; Luke 22:14) and hence not in Gethsemane either (cf. Matt. 26:36; “them” in the context of vv. 30–36 refers to the eleven remaining disciples who had been in the upper room). It is unlikely that there would have been time for either Joseph or Nicodemus to have found out about Jesus’ arrest and joined Peter. Further, Joseph of Arimathea was still not openly a disciple of Jesus (John 19:38). Thus, it is unlikely that he would have followed Him into the high priest’s courtyard—especially not with Peter, who was known to be one of Christ’s disciples.

The other disciple with Peter was most likely John, who never names himself in his gospel but instead describes himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (see introduction, “The Authorship of John’s Gospel,” in John 1–11, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 2006]). That identification receives support from 20:2–8, the only other passage in John’s gospel where the phrase “other disciple” occurs. There the “other disciple” is clearly identified as the disciple whom Jesus loved (20:2). The disciple whom Jesus loved (John) is also associated with Peter in 13:23–24 and 21:20–21.

Some object that a simple Galilean fisherman such as John could hardly be known (the Greek word suggests more than a casual acquaintance) to the high priest. But it must be remembered that “fishermen were entrepreneurs, not common laborers at the bottom of the social spectrum” (D. M. Smith, cited in Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 513 n. 14). John’s father’s fishing business was large enough for him to have hired servants working for him (Mark 1:19–20). According to the apocryphal gospel of the Hebrews, the apostle John used to deliver fish to the high priest’s house while he was still working for his father (Köstenberger, John, 513 n. 14).

It is also possible that John, through his mother, Salome (cf. Matt. 27:56 with Mark 15:40), was of priestly descent. She apparently was the sister of Jesus’ mother, Mary (cf. John 19:25 with Mark 15:40). Since Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36; probably through her mother; she was of the line of David through her father [Luke 3:23–38]), who was from a priestly family (Luke 1:5), Salome would be too. The early church historian Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History III. 31.3) cites a letter from Polycrates, a late second-century bishop of Ephesus (where John spent his last years), in which Polycrates states that John had been a priest.

Whatever the case may be, John was sufficiently well known that he was allowed to enter with Jesus into the court of the high priest. Peter, however, was not, and was left standing at the door outside. Realizing what had happened, the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper (the feminine form of the noun indicates that this was a woman, as ?. 17 confirms. That a woman was on duty at the entrance indicates that this incident did not take place in the temple complex, where only men manned such posts.), and brought Peter in. That John was able to vouch for Peter shows again that he was well known in the high priest’s household. Peter’s desire to be with Jesus overcame his fear, and he entered the courtyard.

But as he did, the slave-girl who kept the door said something to Peter that jolted him. “You are not also (in addition to John) one of this man’s disciples, are you?” she demanded. The question in the Greek text expects a negative answer. Following her cue, Peter tersely blurted out, “I am not.” Why he should deny being a disciple of Jesus is not immediately apparent. After all, John, who was known to be one of Jesus’ disciples, had just been admitted without incident. It may be that Peter was not accustomed to associating with the rich and powerful. Perhaps the unfamiliar setting he found himself in caused him to lose his nerve and burst out a cowardly denial when he was caught off guard by the servant girl’s unexpected challenge. Whatever the reason may have been, this and his subsequent denials proved that the Lord knew Peter better than he knew himself (cf. 13:37–38). The tragic story of Peter’s multiple denials “is a warning to all who would claim self-confidently that they would follow Jesus ‘wherever he leads them.’ Boasting of our abilities is an invitation to failure. That is exactly what Peter discovered” (Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002], 230).

No doubt desperate to avoid any further questions, Peter hurried across the courtyard toward the place where some of the high priest’s slaves and officers of the temple guard (probably part of the arresting party) were standing. The detail that they had made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves, again reflects eyewitness testimony. More significant, it shows that this initial hearing took place at night, since it would not likely have been cold enough at Passover to have a fire during the day. Trying to blend in and be as inconspicuous as possible, Peter was also with them, standing and warming himself. He was taking a risk that someone else would recognize him in the firelight (which is exactly what did happen; Mark 14:66–67; Luke 22:55–56). But standing all alone in the courtyard would only have called further attention to himself—which was the last thing he wanted to do. In a bitter irony Peter, like Judas a little while earlier in Gethsemane (18:5), wound up standing with the enemies of Jesus.

Leaving Peter in that vulnerable position, the scene now shifts indoors to the dramatic confrontation between Annas and Jesus.

JESUS’ TRIAL: ACT TWO

The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.” When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. (18:19–24)

Jesus’ trial before the Jewish authorities was a sham, since His fate had already been determined. Back in chapter 11 “the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, ‘What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs’” (vv. 47–48). The chilling conclusion they arrived at (proposed by Caiaphas; vv. 49–50) was that Jesus had to die, “so from that day on they planned together to kill Him” (v. 53). Thus none of the three phases of the Lord’s trial before the Jewish authorities was an impartial attempt to truly determine His guilt or innocence. Instead, their purpose was to put a veneer of legality on His murder.

This informal hearing before Annas was no exception. Rather than bringing charges against the Lord and producing evidence to substantiate them as in any legal proceeding, Annas questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. This blatant attempt to get the Lord to incriminate Himself was illegal. Just as the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does today, Jewish law protected the accused from being forced to testify against himself. It was Annas’s responsibility to inform Jesus of the charges against Him. Instead, he asked vague, general questions, hoping to uncover a crime to justify the death sentence that had already been decided on.

Jesus, however, was well aware of the law. Therefore He answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret.” The Lord had no ulterior motive, no secret plan, no hidden agenda known only to an inner cadre of followers. He had openly preached the saving gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 11:1–5; Mark 1:14, 38–39; 4:17; Luke 4:18–21, 43–44; 8:1; 20:1) and offered salvation to those who accepted it (Matt. 11:28–30; John 10:9; 14:6). Jesus’ challenge, “Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said,” was not an act of insolent defiance, but a demand that the requirements of the law for legitimate accusers and accusations be observed. The Lord unmasked Annas’s hypocrisy, and challenged him to present his case and call his witnesses.

Embarrassed by his master’s loss of face (and likely seeking to curry Annas’s favor), one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” To strike a prisoner, especially one not accused of a crime, was illegal. Years later when Paul stood before the Sanhedrin, he too was illegally struck, in his case by order of the high priest (Acts 23:2). Angered at this egregious violation of the law, Paul retorted, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” (v. 3). After one of the bystanders rebuked him for reviling the high priest (v. 4), Paul humbly apologized (v. 5).

Jesus, however, maintained a majestic calm; “while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Peter 2:23). The Lord answered the one who struck Him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” Christ’s logic was impeccable. If He was wrong about the proper legal procedure, they should have corrected Him instead of hitting Him. But if (as He did) the Lord spoke accurately, what justifiable reason was there for striking Him? Once again Jesus demanded a fair trial—which His opponents had no intention of giving Him.

Realizing that he was getting nowhere with his questioning of Jesus, Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Only Caiaphas, the reigning high priest, could bring legal charges against Jesus before Pilate.

As they led Jesus away, the focus shifted back to the courtyard, where the final act in the drama of Peter’s denial was about to play out.

PETER’S DENIAL: ACT TWO

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. (18:25–27)

While Jesus was being questioned by Annas, Peter, still standing and warming himself next to the fire in the courtyard, was interrogated by Annas’s subordinates. Becoming suspicious of this stranger, they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” Here was a chance for Peter to redeem himself and be courageously honest. Once again, however, he denied it, and said, “I am not.” But the repeated questioning of Peter by the others had aroused the suspicions of one of the slaves of the high priest. Making a bad situation for Peter far worse, this individual was a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off (Malchus) earlier that evening in Gethsemane. He challenged Peter with the most specific (and dangerous) accusation of all: “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” Being a disciple of Jesus was not a crime as of yet, but assaulting a man with a sword was. Panic-stricken, Peter emphatically denied for the third time any knowledge of Jesus.

At that very moment, two things happened that drew the two dramas concerning Jesus and Peter together. Immediately after Peter’s third denial, a rooster crowed. At that very moment “the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, ‘Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times’” (Luke 22:61). Overwhelmed with shame, guilt, and grief at his sins of denial, Peter “went out and wept bitterly” (v. 62).