Two tests of personal integrity are presented. Roman soldiers used physical force they thought necessary to arrest Jesus. Next, Jewish officers led Jesus to a former high priest (18:12). No charges were stated, so binding Him was uncalled for, but not out of character.
Jesus’ hearing was illegitimate (18:13-14). The high priest was to serve for life (Numbers 35:25; Deuteronomy 10:6). By the New Testament era, the office had been terribly politicized. Annas had been appointed and removed in about a year, but in the following eighteen years, others, including four of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas, held the office. It was Caiaphas who earlier advised that eliminating Jesus would forestall Roman intervention (11:49-50).
Probably the “other disciple” was John (18:15-16). The doorkeeper had observed him enter with Jesus (18:17-18), so by saying “also” she indicated she believed both John and Peter to be disciples of Jesus. Peter’s first denial followed. He then casually found a place among the men around the fire, but familiarity did not prevent his being recognized.
Annas addressed two issues: With whom was Jesus associated and what was He teaching, each a potential threat to Jewish status with the Romans (18:19-24). Jesus’ mastery over this legal absurdity, however, remained solid. He spoke only indirectly to the second question: “I have been teaching right along in the synagogue and in the temple” (18:20, Berkeley). His teaching was no mystery: “I teach nothing in private that I have not said in public” (NLT). Witnesses were available and could easily verify His normal practice (18:21).
No charges had been made. Annas had not been high priest in years, so he had no legal standing. Abuse was not allowed, which an officer violated: “How dare you talk like that to the High Priest!” (18:22, GNB). Jesus directed His question to Annas, not the officer (18:23). Having no response to Jesus’ accusations, Annas forwarded Him to Caiaphas (18:24). Peter’s test of character continued (18:25-27). John’s record actually expects a “No” answer. Again, the drama fell on Peter’s denial. Jesus’ prophecy did not concern the persons questioning Peter, but on Peter himself. The third inquirer had been present when Jesus was arrested and had witnessed Peter’s attempt on the life of his relative (18:26-27). John’s record implies a “Yes” answer was expected, but the answer was a third lie. Peter would need the grace and forgiveness Jesus alone could provide.
Dr. David Moore can be contacted at dm5867se@outlook.com
