article50

§44 Jesus and the High Priest (John 18:15–27)

A relatively brief interrogation of Jesus by the high priest (vv. 19–24) is framed by a two-part account of Peter’s denial (vv. 15–18, 25–27). The division of the denial into two scenes follows a precedent reflected in Mark (14:54, 66–72) and Matthew (26:58, 69–75; Luke on the other hand, puts the material in one continuous narrative, 22:54–62). As in Mark, the vivid picture of Peter warming himself by the enemy’s fire is the point at which the narrative breaks off (v. 18) and later resumes. But unlike Mark and Matthew, which use the first scene only to set the stage for the three denials, John’s Gospel assigns the first denial to his first scene (vv. 16–18) and the other two to the second (vv. 25–27).

The high priest’s house, and its courtyard, is the setting for all that happens in this section. Annas, mentioned in passing in verse 13, is forgotten until verse 24, where the narrator belatedly supplies the information that Jesus had been sent on, still bound (cf. v. 12), from Annas to Caiaphas the high priest, who must, accordingly, be understood as the interrogator in verses 19–23 (see note on v. 24).

Simon Peter and another, unnamed disciple have followed Jesus on this circuit. There is no specific evidence linking this disciple with “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” mentioned in 13:25, though the identification has been often made. Because the other disciple was known to the high priest (v. 15), he was admitted to the courtyard of the high priest’s house (though presumably not into the house itself) and secured Peter’s admittance as well (v. 16). The question of the girl at the door (v. 17) seems to reflect the same interest in the identity of Jesus’ disciples that the high priest himself shows in his questioning of Jesus. Inside the house the high priest was asking Jesus about his disciples as well as his teaching (v. 19), while outside the girl was asking Peter, You are not one of his disciples, are you? Peter, despite Jesus’ successful effort to ensure the disciples’ safety (v. 8), and despite the fact that the identity of his fellow disciple was already known (v. 15), did not want to be so identified and stubbornly denied any connection whatever with Jesus (vv. 17, 25, 27). Like Judas (cf. v. 5), he stands with Jesus’ enemies, warming himself at their fire in the courtyard (vv. 18, 25). The synoptic Gospels tell the story in such a way as to imply that the account of Peter’s denial probably came from Peter himself, but here another disciple is present as a potential witness against Peter, and it is possible that the story is told, at least in part, from his viewpoint. If this disciple, who was known to the high priest, is the source for the narrative of both the arrest and the interrogation, it is understandable that Malchus, the high priest’s slave, would be named (v. 10) and also that Peter’s third questioner (v. 26) would be identified as Malchus’ relative. The latter identification serves as an ironic link between Peter’s misguided zeal in the garden in verse 10 and his abject cowardice in the high priest’s courtyard. But whoever the narrator is at this point, he follows the precedent of the synoptic writers in calling the reader’s attention to the crowing of the cock, in exact fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction (cf. 13:38).

If Peter feared for his life, it is doubtful that his fear was well grounded. Jesus had already secured the disciples’ safety (vv. 8–9), and the apparent fact that Peter’s companion was publicly identified as one of them does not seem to have put him in any particular danger. In asking Jesus about his disciples, the high priest probably wants their names, but not in order to arrest them. More likely, he wants to question them about Jesus’ teaching. The concern about his disciples and his teaching is a single concern. In reply, Jesus indicates that the identification of a fixed group of people as his disciples is irrelevant because his teaching is in any case a public matter. He has said nothing privately to his disciples that he has not said openly to the world … in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together (v. 20).

Jesus’ concise answer gathers up in itself the discourses of his public ministry in the temple at Jerusalem (8:20; cf. 10:22–24) and in the synagogue at Capernaum (6:59). Jesus’ “trial” here before the high priest is no trial at all, because Jesus merely refers back to the ongoing trial that was the public ministry and issued finally in the verdict reached by the Sanhedrin in 11:47–53. The answer seems to overlook the more private instructions Jesus had given to his disciples after their meal together in chapters 13–17. Though these teachings were never said to be in secret, they were intended for the specific group to whom Jesus referred when he prayed for “those whom you gave me out of the world” (17:6, 9). But Jesus’ answer to the high priest is based on the assumption that everything he said privately to his own disciples was implicit already in what he said openly to all the people—if only they had listened and understood! (cf. 12:39–40). At times his words to the disciples echoed—with subtle but crucial differences—things he had said to the religious authorities or the crowds in the temple (as, e.g., 13:33 with 7:34 and 8:21 or 14:7 with 8:19, or 16:27–28 with 8:42). Nothing he said was subversive; there were no secret instructions for a select group engaged in plotting against either Rome or the Jewish priesthood. To learn the substance of his teaching, no list of disciples, no interrogation of them one by one, was necessary. The high priest could question anyone who had heard Jesus on any number of occasions—his own priestly associates in fact—and draw his own conclusions.

The exchange ends, like the Sanhedrin trial in Mark (14:65) and Matthew (26:67), with Jesus being subjected to physical abuse (v. 22). The reasons, however, are different. There is no “mocking” scene here. Instead, one of the guards, interpreting Jesus’ response as a refusal to answer the high priest’s question, and therefore as a sign of contempt, rebuked Jesus and struck him, probably because of Exodus 22:28 (“Do not … curse the ruler of your people”). The Apostle Paul is described as showing respect for this principle in Acts 23:2–5. But while Paul apologizes for his behavior by pleading ignorance, Jesus squarely denies the charge of evil speaking: If I said something wrong, … testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me? (v. 23). The incident is probably told for the sake of this final unanswered challenge, which points back not merely to Jesus’ statement to the high priest in verses 20–21 but (like that statement itself) to Jesus’ entire public ministry. The reason he cannot be charged with “speaking evil” of anyone is that he has always spoken the truth, and the truth is incompatible with evil (cf. 8:46, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?”). The purpose of Jesus’ answer to the guard is simply to reinforce and punctuate his answer to the high priest.