12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.
How many soldiers would it take to arrest Jesus? Since the Scriptures must be fulfilled, it would only take one. But Judas and the Jewish officials didn’t understand that Jesus was a willing sacrifice. Jesus had demonstrated his power over them, but he let them take him anyway. This is the way he let them take him. But that will not be the way it happens when he comes back.
In Revelation 19, Jesus is coming back riding on a horse and the armies of heaven are with him. There is about to be an epic battle with “the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army” (Rev 19:19 NIV). But the battle doesn’t happen. The beast is captured and thrown into hell. Then, “the rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse” (Rev 19:21 NIV). There is no battle, Jesus simply speaks his word (the sword) and the same power that created the universe wipes out every adversary.
These soldiers don’t know who they are dealing with, and if they did, they wouldn’t have arrested Jesus. But they did and they took him to Annas. I previously explained the relationship of Annas and Caiaphas when commenting on John 11:45-47. It is evident from this that he still held unofficial power over the Jewish society of the time. He is even called the high priest by John and one of the officials later in John 18:19, 22.
The high priest was supposed to be a position held for life and should have been succeeded by one of his sons. But time and circumstances changed that. This is seen when Solomon dismissed Abiathar and appointed Zadok high priest (1 Kings 2:27, 35), though both were in the line of Aaron the first high priest. The Roman government appointed whom they wanted but were still priestly families though not necessarily in the line of Zadok.
With all the mess obscuring who should be priest and who should be conducting Jesus’ trial, it is important to understand that God was still in control. We are reminded here that Caiaphas was the one who prophesied that Jesus would be put to death for the people. Whether it is soldiers or illegitimate high priest, God’s plan is being carried out.
15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard, 16 but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.
Most people believe that the other disciple is John. But this isn’t positive because John usually adds “the one Jesus loved” to the description. It is lacking in this verse. If it was John, I’ve always puzzled over how a young fisherman from Galilee would have been known by Annas. I checked various commentaries and the explanations varied with no real agreement. Some speculate that John’s family was wealthy and therefore known by Annas. Some believe it was because John delivered fish from their business to the family. Gill’s commentary mentions some of these but concludes it could not be John because his accent would have given him away just as it did for Peter. Gill posits that the other disciple could have been Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea or some other well-known person in Jerusalem.[1] Notice that the text says that he entered with Jesus. He had to have been among the crowd (Matt 26:47) that came with Judas. What is most important is not who the other disciple is but that his presence and acquaintance with Annas was necessary for Peter to be admitted to the courtyard. God works in mysterious ways but it was necessary for Peter to be there and God made sure it happened.
17 "You are not one of his disciples, are you?" the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, "I am not." 18 It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.
This is the first of Peter’s denial of Jesus. Did Peter even hear himself when he said this? Didn’t Jesus’ words, “You will deny me.” even faintly echo in his mind? Did he remember, “Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 10:33 ESV)? Obviously, he didn’t. His concern was to find out what was happening with Jesus and for his own comfort and safety.
Perhaps he did remember but rationalized his actions for the greater good. Maybe he could still rescue Jesus if he stayed close. I can’t imagine him thinking this unless he had seen some of the one-man heroes of Hollywood who can defy the odds. But the curious thing is that he not only went into the enemy’s den but was mingling so close as to warm himself by their fire.
But what about you and me? When does our need for self-preservation outweigh our separation from the world. It’s easy to rationalize that a little lie or some other questionable action is for the betterment of the church or our family.
19 Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."
Even when much of what Jesus said seems to be only to his immediate disciples, there is always spies lurking around to report back to the officials who wanted to kill him. One of the most notable is when Jesus talked to the blind man who was born blind in John 9:35-40. In his conversation, Jesus clearly proclaims he is the “Son of Man,” the Messiah and the man worships him. Right there, Pharisees were present and heard him. They didn’t say one word about Jesus’ claim but only that he called them blind because of their sins. Why didn’t these guys speak up at the trial and accuse Jesus?
Jesus’ defense is simple. Call witnesses to tell what I have been preaching. Since Jesus was preaching the very words of God, he had nothing to fear. Yet, he knew exactly how this trial would end. This defense wasn’t for the high priest, it was for us so that we would go back and see what Jesus had preached and done.
22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. 23 "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" 24 Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.
The high priest and his associates violated many of the rules of a fair trial according to Jewish law. You can search the internet and find ten or twelve reasons why Jesus’ trial was illegal. Just to mention a few, a trial was not supposed to be held the day before the Sabbath or holy days. The trial was supposed to be in a public place. The charges should have been dismissed when no reliable witnesses could be found. The trials were never supposed to be done at night. This instance of an official striking Jesus was way out of line. The person should have been reprimanded by the high priest. All this and the other violations of due process were done in order to have a truly sinless Christ executed according to Scripture. Had they followed their own rules, as Nicodemus had asked in John 7:5, they would not have condemned Jesus. But it was God’s plan and foreknowledge to have Jesus crucified (Acts 2:4).
25 As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, "You are not one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it, saying, "I am not." 26 One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, "Didn't I see you with him in the olive grove?" 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.
In the meantime, Peter is still warming himself among the enemy. Perhaps the warmth of the fire has lulled him into a false sense of safety. I’m not talking about safety from the soldiers, but safety from Satan’s temptation and pride in his own ability to remain true to Jesus. That is certainly what can happen to us when we get too cozy with the world. It’s like the fable of a frog that is in pot of water that is slowly heated and will cook because it doesn't realize the water is getting too warm.
When Peter is startled out of his comfort zone, he immediately denies that he is one of Jesus’ disciples. Peter isn’t counting how many times he has denied Jesus, but then another, who was present when Jesus was arrested makes an undeniable identification. But Peter denies it again, “Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know the man’” (Matt 26:74 ESV). In the vernacular, this would be, “I’ll be damned if I’m lying to you that I don’t know Jesus.” Can you imagine saying that if you know Jesus? Fortunately, we have the final story of Jesus restoring Peter in Chapter Twenty-one.
Peter’s denial of Jesus reminds me of this warning from Paul:
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! (1 Cor 10:11-12 NIV)
Throughout Jesus’ trial and Peter’s denial is the sovereign hand of God. When we read this, it should help us examine our own lives. Peter’s denial is the biggest warning for us. We can be tempted to the point that we fail if we are not careful. We can’t get so cozy with the world that we are caught off guard.
When we look at Jesus’ trial, we must always remember that there will always be injustices in the world as long as there are sinful people. But this will never stop the Lord from accomplishing his purposes.
[1] John Gill, “John 18:15,” in John Gill's Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, (Seattle, WA: BibleSoft, 2011).
