John 18:13-28

Jesus Before the Jewish Authorities

John 18:13-14     Brought before Annas

13 They bound him and then brought him first to Annas.  
He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high-priest that year. 
14 Caiaphas was the one who voiced the consensus for the Jews
that it was expedient for one man to die for the sake of the people.

Annas had been high priest some years previously. In the interim, he had been succeeded by two of his sons, before the role was taken by Caiaphas, his son-in-law. He was still the obvious “power behind the throne”.

The synoptic Gospels had no record of Jesus’ appearance before Annas. From an historical point of view, the fourth Gospel may be the more reliable here. 

The interrogation of Jesus before Annas was not an official trial, but more like a preliminary hearing to establish, for the sake of the Roman authorities, that there was sufficient reason to proceed further to a formal trial. 

John 18:15-18     Peter Denies Jesus - 1

15 Simon Peter and the other disciple followed Jesus.  
That disciple was known to the high-priest,
so he went with Jesus into the high-priest’s courtyard.

The other disciple seemed quite at home in the Jerusalem scene, and known to the high priest. The biographical note raises a number of questions about the Disciple’s identity, which the narrative deliberately ignored. Was the other disciple the Beloved Disciple?

16 Peter stood outside in front of the gate.  
So the other disciple, the one known to the high-priest, went out
and spoke to the woman gate-keeper,
and brought Peter inside.

At least, whatever about the others, Peter and the other disciple did not desert Jesus. 

17 So the young servant-woman in charge at the gate said to Peter,
“Are you not one of that man’s disciples?”  
He answered, “I am not.”

The young servant-girl was not so much accusing him, as wondering about his presence. Though obviously a confession of weakness, perhaps Peter gave little thought to his answer, wanting only to pass the matter off and hopefully remain inconspicuous. His fearful I am not contrasted clearly with the I am of Jesus in the garden.

18 The servants and the temple-police were standing around inside.  
They had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold,
and were keeping themselves warm.  
Peter was standing with them and warming himself.

John 18:19-24     Annas Questions Jesus 

Jesus’ appearance before Annas was presented as a solitary interrogation, with no clear narrative purpose, other than providing the author the opportunity to reaffirm, especially for the sake of the Gospel readers, that the message of Jesus was not an esoteric message reserved for initiates, but an appeal made to all. God loved the world, and the mission of Jesus was to save that world. People would experience eternal life to the extent that they took Jesus seriously and followed his way.

19 The high-priest interrogated Jesus about his disciples
and about his teaching. 

The interrogation addressed two points: Jesus’ disciples and his teaching.

20 Jesus said to him in reply,
“I consistently taught in a synagogue or in the temple,
where all the Jews mix around.  
I taught nothing secretly. 

Jesus’ reply addressed, firstly, the issue of his teaching.

21 Why question me? Ask those who listened what I taught them.
They know what I said to them.”

Jesus’ comment may have been his answer to Annas’s specific question about disciples – though he may have intended the general public who had heard him. Jesus had no witnesses present to speak on his behalf, except, perhaps, the other disciple known to the high priest (the Beloved Disciple?). Peter had already denied any association with or knowledge of Jesus; and the voice of only one witness would have carried no legal weight.

Jesus’ response to Annas was respectful, but quietly self-possessed. He would neither accept the role of helpless or cowed victim, nor be drawn into the endless cycle of vindictiveness or retaliation.

22 When he said this,
one of the temple-police standing there gave him a slap
and said, “Is that the way you reply to the high-priest?”
23 JJesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, prove the error.  
If what I said is true, why do you strike me?”

As with Annas, so with the police officer, Jesus stood his ground, respectfully but emphatically. The interrogation went nowhere.

24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

The Gospel would recount no formal Jewish trial of Jesus. It would give no detail whatsoever of Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas, nor would it mention any formal trial before the whole Sanhedrin. From the Gospel’s perspective, Jesus had already been tried and accused of blasphemy [5:18; 7:19,30-32,44; 10:20-21,39]; his opponents had even sought to stone him [8:59; 10.31]. Caiaphas, along with the Sanhedrin, had already decided that Jesus was to be somehow eliminated (though initially, before Judas had presented them with an opportunity they had not expected, they had judged it more prudent to wait until after the Feast [11:47-53]).

John 18:25-27     Peter Denies Jesus – 2 and 3 

25 Meanwhile Simon Peter was standing there keeping himself warm.

The spotlight settled once more on Peter, taking up from where it had finished earlier with the woman, the small group of slaves and police gathered around the charcoal fire.

So they said to him, “Surely you are one of that fellow’s disciples?”  
He denied it, saying, “I am not.”

Their question, like the one already asked by the woman at the gate, may have reflected curiosity rather than accusation. Peter was caught, having already denied any connection with Jesus. His denial this time, however, was more deliberate and public.

26  One of the high-priest’s servants,
a relation of the one whose ear Peter had cut off,
said, “Did I not see you in the garden with him? “
27 Peter denied it again. 

His unconscious desire to be accepted within the group exposed him to the contagion of their hostility towards their victim. Jesus had become source of danger for him, a threat.  He was drawn in further to share the group's hostility towards Jesus.

This time, the question was clearly an accusation. Peter’s thrice-repeated denial emphasised his guilt. That guilt reflected, not so much loss of faith (as with Judas), but breakdown of courage. He was blindly carried away on the mood of the moment.  Its insertion into the narrative served to highlight the increasing isolation of Jesus, which, in its turn, illustrated the world’s sin and Jesus’ determination to overcome it by ever greater love and forgiveness.

At that instant, a rooster crowed.

Crowing roosters announce the dawning of the new day.  With the crowing of this rooster, light began to dawn for Peter   He would see the truth of what he had done, the reality of his sin.

The Gospel's author used Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denial [14:38], even down to the detail about the rooster crowing, to underline Jesus' control throughout the unfolding drama. Other outcomes he had foretold would, likewise, be fulfilled.

John 18:28     Jesus Handed Over to Roman Authority

The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus eliminated; but they preferred that the Romans be seen as those primarily responsible for his execution. It is uncertain whether they had authority to impose the death penalty at that time. They certainly lacked authority to execute by crucifixion. Crucifixion was the Roman penalty, reserved specifically for crimes against the State. Crucifixion was the high priest’s aim, since, in accordance with Jewish law, those crucified were judged to be accursed by God. Deuteronomy had proclaimed: anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse [21:23]. The leadership needed to discredit Jesus totally in order to pre-empt any retaliation from the common people, especially the Galilean pilgrims.

28 They led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium.

From what would follow, it was obvious that they were not simply the soldiers and temple police, but representatives of the leadership – chief priests and Pharisees.

It was early morning.
They did not go inside the Praetorium
so that they would not incur ceremonial impurity
but could eat the Passover.

As would be made obvious later, the timing was important, and carried a weight of theological meaning. At the level of historical events, it was the day preceding the Passover. During the afternoon, the lambs would be killed in the temple and cooked in preparation for the Passover meal that evening. It was also Friday, the day preceding the Sabbath; so the imminent Passover would coincide with the Sabbath, making it a particularly solemn Sabbath.

It was of utmost importance, especially to both priests and Pharisees, to maintain their ceremonial purity. If the priests incurred defilement, particularly the chief priests, they would be unable to minister in the temple. The narrative highlighted the stark contrast between their meticulous concern not to incur ceremonial defilement and, thus, disqualify themselves from the ritual killing and eating of the Passover lambs, and their impatient desire deliberately to kill Jesus, the real Passover Lamb.

Next >> John 18:29-40