'And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that
disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into
the palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without.
Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high
priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also
one of this Man's disciples? He saith, I am not. And the servants and
officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold:
and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed
himself. The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His
doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever
taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always
resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou Me? ask them
which heard Me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I
said. And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by
struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest Thou the high
priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of
the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me? Now Annas had sent Him
bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. And Simon Peter stood and warmed
himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His
disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the
high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not
I see thee in the garden with Him? Peter then denied again: and
immediately the cock crew.'--JOHN xviii. 15-27.
The last verses of the preceding passage belong properly to this one,
for they tell us that Jesus was 'first' brought before Annas, a fact
which we owe to John only. Annas himself and his five sons held the
high-priesthood in succession. To the sons has to be added Caiaphas,
who, as we learn from John only, was Annas' son-in-law, and so one of
the family party. That Jesus should have been taken to him, though he
held no office at the time, shows who pulled the strings in the
Sanhedrim. The reference to Caiaphas in verse 14 seems intended to
suggest what sort of a trial might be expected, presided over by such a
man. But verse 15 tells us that Jesus entered in, accompanied by
'another disciple,' 'to the court,' not, as we should have expected, of
Annas, but 'of the high priest,' who, by the testimony of verse 13, can
be no one but Caiaphas. How came that about? Apparently, because Annas
had apartments in the high-priest's official residence. As he obviously
exercised the influence through his sons and son-in-law, who
successively held the office, it was very natural that he should be a
fixture in the palace.
What John's connection was with this veteran intriguer (assuming that
John was that 'other disciple') we do not know. Probably it was some
family bond that united two such antipathetic natures. At all events,
the Apostle's acquaintance with the judge so far condoned his
discipleship to the criminal, that the doors of the audience chamber
were open to him, though he was known as 'one of them.'
So he and poor Peter were parted, and the latter left shivering outside
in the grey of the morning. John had not missed him at first, for he
would be too much absorbed in watching Jesus to have thoughts to spare
for Peter, and would conclude that he was following him; but, when he
did miss him, like a brave man he ran the risk of being observed, and
went for him. The sharp-witted porteress, whose business it was to
judge applicants for entrance by a quick glance, at once inferred that
Peter 'also' was one of this man's disciples. Her 'also' shows that she
knew John to be one; and her 'this man' shows that either she did not
know Jesus' name, or thought Him too far beneath her to be named by
her! The time during which Peter had been left outside alone, repenting
now of, and alarmed for what might happen to him on account of, his
ill-aimed blow at Malchus, and feeling the nipping cold, had taken all
his courage out of him. The one thing he wished was to slip in
unnoticed, and so the first denial came to his lips as rashly as many
another word had come in old days. He does not seem to have remained
with John, who probably went up to the upper end of the hall, where the
examination was going on, while Peter, not having the _entree_ and very
much terrified as well as miserable, stayed at the lower end, where the
understrappers were making themselves comfortable round a charcoal
fire, and paying no attention to the proceedings at the other end. He
seemed to be as indifferent as they were, and to be intent only on
getting himself warmed. But what surges of emotion would be tossing in
his heart, which yet he was trying to hide under the mask of being an
unconcerned spectator, like the others!
The examination of our Lord was conducted by 'the high priest,' by
which title John must mean Caiaphas, as he has just emphatically noted
that he then filled the office. But how is that to be reconciled with
the statement that Jesus was taken to Annas? Apparently by supposing
that, though Annas was present, Caiaphas was spokesman. But did not a
formal trial before Caiaphas follow, and does not John tell us (verse
24) that, after the first examination, Annas sent Jesus bound to
Caiaphas? Yes. And are these things compatible with this account of an
examination conducted by the latter? Yes, if we remember that flagrant
wresting of justice marked the whole proceedings. The condemnation of
Jesus was a judicial murder, in which the highest court of the Jews
'decreed iniquity by a law'; and it was of a piece with all the rest
that he, who was to pose as an impartial judge presently, should, in
the spirit of a partisan, conduct this preliminary inquiry. Observe
that no sentence was pronounced in the case at this stage. This was not
a court at all. What was it? An attempt to entrap the prisoner into
admissions which might be used against Him in the court to be held
presently. The rulers had Jesus in their hands, and they did not know
what to do with Him now that they had Him. They were at a loss to know
what His indictment was to be. To kill Him was the only thing on which
they had made up their minds; the pretext had yet to be found, and so
they tried to get Him to say something which would serve their purpose.
'The high priest therefore asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His
teaching'! If they did not know about either, why had they arrested
Him? Cunning outwits itself, and falls into the pit it digs for the
innocent. Jesus passed by the question as to His disciples unnoticed,
and by His calm answer as to His teaching showed that He saw the snare.
He reduced Caiaphas and Annas to perpetrating plain injustice, or to
letting Him go free. Elementary fair play to a prisoner prescribes that
he should be accused of some crime by some one, and not that he should
furnish his judges with materials for his own indictment. 'Why askest
thou Me? ask them that have heard Me,' is unanswerable, except by such
an answer as the officious 'servant' gave--a blow and a violent speech.
But Christ's words reach far beyond the momentary purpose; they contain
a wide truth. His teaching loves the daylight. There are no muttered
oracles, no whispered secrets for the initiated, no double voice, one
for the multitude, and another for the adepts. All is above-board, and
all is spoken 'openly to the world.' Christianity has no cliques or
coteries, nothing sectional, nothing reserved. It is for mankind, for
all mankind, all for mankind. True, there are depths in it; true, the
secrets which Jesus can only speak to loving ears in secret are His
sweetest words, but they are 'spoken in the ear' that they may be
'proclaimed on the housetops.'
The high-priest is silent, for there was nothing that he could say to
so undeniable a demand, and he had no witnesses ready. How many since
his day have treated Jesus as he treated Him--condemned Him or rejected
Him without reason, and then looked about for reasons to justify their
attitude, or even sought to make Him condemn Himself!
An unjust judge breeds insolent underlings, and if everything else
fails, blows and foul words cover defeat, and treat calm assertion of
right as impertinence to high-placed officials. Caiaphas degraded his
own dignity more than any words of a prisoner could degrade it.
Our Lord's answer 'reviled not again.' It is meek in majesty and
majestic in meekness. Patient endurance is not forbidden to remonstrate
with insolent injustice, if only its remonstrance bears no heat of
personal anger in it. But Jesus was not so much vindicating His words
to Caiaphas in saying, 'If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the
evil,' as reiterating the challenge for 'witnesses.' He brands the
injustice of Caiaphas, while meekly rebuking the brutality of his
servant. Master and man were alike in smiting Him for words of which
they could not prove the evil.
There was obviously nothing to be gained by further examination. No
crime had been alleged, much less established; therefore Jesus ought to
have been let go. But Annas treated Him as a criminal, and handed Him
over 'bound,' to be formally tried before the man who had just been
foiled in his attempt to play the inquisitor. What a hideous mockery of
legal procedure! How well the pair, father-in-law and son-in-law,
understood each other! What a confession of a foregone conclusion,
evidence or no evidence, in shackling Jesus as a malefactor! And it was
all done in the name of religion! and perhaps the couple of priests did
not know that they were hypocrites, but really thought that they were
'doing God service.'
John's account of Peter's denials rises to a climax of peril and of
keenness of suspicion. The unnamed persons who put the second question
must have had their suspicions roused by something in his manner as he
stood by the glinting fire, perhaps by agitation too great to be
concealed. The third question was put by a more dangerous person still,
who not only recognised Peter's features as the firelight fitfully
showed them, but had a personal ground of hostility in his relationship
to Malchus.
John lovingly spares telling of the oaths and curses accompanying the
denials, but dares not spare the narration of the fact. It has too
precious lessons of humility, of self-distrust, of the possibility of
genuine love being overborne by sudden and strong temptation, to be
omitted. And the sequel of the denials has yet more precious teaching,
which has brought balm to many a contrite heart, conscious of having
been untrue to its deepest love. For the sound of the cock-crow, and
the look from the Lord as He was led away bound past the place where
Peter stood, brought him back to himself, and brought tears to his
eyes, which were sweet as well as bitter. On the resurrection morning
the risen Lord sent the message of forgiveness and special love to the
broken-hearted Apostle, when He said, 'Go, tell My disciples and
Peter,' and on that day there was an interview of which Paul knew (1
Cor. xv. 5), but the details of which were apparently communicated by
the Apostle to none of his brethren. The denier who weeps is taken to
Christ's heart, and in sacred secrecy has His forgiveness freely given,
though, before he can be restored to his public office, he must, by his
threefold public avowal of love, efface his threefold denial. We may
say, 'Thou knowest that I love thee,' even if we have said, 'I know Him
not,' and come nearer to Jesus, by reason of the experience of His
pardoning love, than we were before we fell.