Jesus Before Annas (John 18:12-27)

John in this section informs his readers about the first trial that Jesus went through after his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. This trial took place before Annas, who seems to have created a personal dynasty with regard to the priesthood because five of his sons, as well as his son-in-law Caiaphas, also functioned as high priest. Perhaps the rotation was due to the requirements by the Roman authorities. John is the only one of the Gospel writers to mention this appearance of Jesus before Annas, which was followed by his appearance before Caiaphas, and this next stage is described in the other Gospels. It is possible that Annas lived in the same house or complex as his son-in-law.

As with most descriptions of incidents, we can see that more than one event is happening. The obvious events are those happening to Jesus and those happening to Peter. Alongside them, we could ask about how the incident reveals what has happened to the relative of the man whose ear Peter had sliced off with his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. John uses that man to say something to us as well.

The Saviour Contrasted with Annas

Of course, we have to remember that there were two high priests in the house of Annas on this evening. One was Annas, and he represented the corruption of the priesthood connected to the Levitical system. The other was Jesus, and he was the priest that God had chosen and who had consecrated himself to become the sacrifice that would deliver his people from their sins.

There is another contrast between Annas and Jesus. Annas, who had been the official high priest for several years two decades or so before this incident, had been determined to hold on to the status and privileges that accompanied the role. Jesus, who had eternally enjoyed the highest place, was very different from Annas. Unlike Annas, Jesus was willing to become a nobody in order to fulfil the requirements of his role.

Obviously Annas still played a prominent role behind the scenes as far as the decisions of the priesthood were concerned. Maybe he imagined that he would be able to get Jesus to say something that would condemn himself. Whether Annas did or not, he found himself observing a man in whom he could find nothing to condemn. So he had to send Jesus away, still bound, to Caiaphas but with no success from his interrogation.

John here mentions the comment by Caiaphas that it would be better if Jesus died rather than having the people in general suffer at the hands of the Romans (John 11:45-53). While Caiaphas did not see the death of Jesus as a divine sacrifice, John does say that the high priest prophesied when he opined about whether Jesus should die. So while Caiaphas was not a believer, he could be used by God to declare his will, which is what happened with regard to the death of Jesus. It is striking to note that a man did not realise he was speaking on behalf of God. As Calvin observed, ‘God employed the foul mouth of a wicked and treacherous high priest to utter a prediction (John 11:50), just as he guided the tongue of the prophet Balaam, contrary to his wish, so that he was constrained to bless the people, though he desired to curse them, to gain favour with king Balak (Numbers 23:7, 8).’

John clearly wants his readers to know that what occurred at this hasty arranged trial was far more than met the eye of onlookers. Nevertheless he does want us to note what some of the onlookers did and he begins with his friend, Peter.

The Saviour denied by Peter for the first time

John describes the involvement of two disciples alongside the trial before Annas. One of the disciples is Simon Peter and the other is generally regarded to be the apostle John, although Calvin thought it was conjecture to think it was John. He points out that it would have been unlikely for John, a lowly fisherman from Galilee, to have been acquainted with the high priest. If it is John himself, then as has been pointed out, it is noticeable that John, who stayed close to Jesus in the high priest’s house and at the cross, fared a lot better than Peter because he followed from a distance.

What were the steps in Peter’s denial? I think it is fair to assume that his following Jesus here was not done in faith. No doubt, he followed because he loved Jesus, but because he had refused to submit to Jesus’ warnings, his faith was very weak. A failure to pay heed to the teachings of the Bible will result in a fall.

A second step involved the contribution of the unnamed disciple. Clearly, he was not in a position of danger although he was in the same location as Peter was. Should he have arranged for Peter to be brought in, and once he was brought in, should that other disciple have stayed with Peter and befriended him? Leaving a believer alone in a place of potential danger is almost guaranteeing a fall.

The fact that it was a girl who opened and closed the door suggests that normally trouble was not expected in this location. Her question to Peter is not an accusation, because it is so framed that she expects him to reply and say that he was not. We know that Peter denied being connected to Jesus. Yet we could say that to put ourselves in a place where we cannot tell the truth is to put ourselves in a place of danger. Even a place where trouble does not usually happen becomes a perilous place to those who are not dedicated disciples.

Once inside the courtyard, Peter joined himself to those who had arrested Jesus in the Garden. A short time before, he had been willing to fight against them, but now because of his lie he found it easy to be with those he once opposed. Initially they made no comments to him, so it was comfortable to be there. Yet there is something incongruous about a believer mixing with those who had arrested Jesus. But it is the case that sin blinds us to dangers lurking around us. When Peter chose to lie to the girl at the door, he became blind to the dangers in the situation to which his wrong choice had led him. Having fallen once, he would continue to do so until he repented.

The Saviour Questioned

Annas’ approach suggests that he was curious to discover how many followers Jesus had. His questions indicate that he is more concerned with number than with what Jesus actually taught. He may have been surprised that Jesus was there by himself. It is important to remember, however, that Jesus was on trial, which is probably why he reminded Annas that there were plenty witnesses who could be called in order to testify what Jesus had taught to his disciples. Annas should have listened to witnesses before questioning the accused.

Jesus also responded to the officer who slapped him and reminded him too that witnesses are essential in a court. It is likely that Jesus was still bound when the officer slapped him because he was then sent immediately to Caiaphas. The officer’s treatment of an accused person was unjust, assuming that Jesus was guilty of disrespect.

We can take important lessons from this incident. One is that we should never judge a person unless there are witnesses who support the allegations against the person. Paul reminds Timothy that he should not receive an accusation against an elder unless there are two or three witnesses. Another lesson is that we should ask a person who misuses us why he is doing so? A third lesson is that we should expect those who have authority in God’s kingdom to always act justly.

Peter denies Jesus twice more

We do not know how much Peter could hear with regard to the trial of Jesus. Yet he was about to hear very unwelcome words when those with him at the fire questioned whether or not he was a disciple of Jesus. Each of the Gospel writers gives different details about the three denials of Peter. We can put them together and see how the incidents played out. But for now, we can focus on the third denial by Peter.

John tells us that Peter discovered that one of the men standing at the fire was a relative of Malchus, the man whose ear Peter had damaged with his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter had not behaved better in the garden than he had in the courtyard. In both locations, he had done what he should not have done. When he used the sword in Gethsemane he was depending on his own abilities. John here is pointing out that effects of past wrong actions can reappear in present wrong activities. How often had Christians to lament that depending on themselves in one situation has caused problems down the road.

This relative of Malchus reminds us also that for some experiencing the help of Jesus will not produce love for the followers of Jesus. There is no hint that this man was influenced in the slightest by what had happened when Jesus healed the wound, or that healing the wound should be mentioned to Annas. More to the point, Peter could not point to what had happened because then he would have had to admit that he had been in the garden. His sin caused him to be silent about the experiences he had known while with Jesus, even to sharing with others how his mistakes had been overruled by Jesus.

John also mentions that the rooster crowed when Peter denied Jesus for the third time, as Jesus had said would happen in 13:38: ‘Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times.”’ No doubt, Peter heard the voice of Jesus speaking powerfully when the rooster crowed. J. C. Ryle said that it would have been as loud a clap of thunder. Yet we know that this dark moment was the start of Peter’s spiritual recovery.