The high priest therefore demanded of Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his doctrine.
Jesus has just been arrested in the garden. Now, in the high priest's house, the questioning begins before anyone has laid a charge — and commentators read it as a hunt for evidence, not a weighing of it.
They took Jesus to Annas first, and then on to Caiaphas. So which of the two asked these questions? Writers have long disagreed:
"The high priest": Augustine, Chrysostom, Alford, Ellicott and Luthardt take this to mean Annas (compare verses 13, 24); but Zahn, like most, takes it to mean Caiaphas.
If it was Annas, one writer explains why he questioned Jesus first, and why the Lord told him so little:
John tells us that Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of the Lord's death, was Annas's son-in-law. Annas was probably seen as a man with some experience in legal matters. That may explain this informal questioning, before they handed the Lord over to Caiaphas. The chief priests may also have hoped that Annas could get some admission from the Lord which would help toward His condemnation. But he was not high priest, so he had no authority, and the Lord did not go into matters with him. He had no real legal power in such a case.
The high priest had no evidence, and his questions show what he was after:
The question about His disciples and His teaching was meant to get something incriminating from His own lips. They wanted a basis for the death sentence they had already decided to pronounce. The other Gospels tell us that they looked for witnesses against Him and found none. That is why, when He pointed them to the witness of His hearers, they were so irritated that they struck our Lord.
They had already settled the verdict, so this was no trial at all:
Verse 19 shows that the Jews had no charge to lay against the Lord. This was not a trial, but an inquisition in which they were seeking to find an accusation.
The two questions carried a hint about Jesus. His reply takes it apart:
Such questions implied that the Lord was a secret plotter against the authorities. The blessed Lord refuses that implication. He reminds the high priest that He spoke openly to the world, and taught openly in public places. In secret He had said nothing.
His answer also sets Him apart from the men questioning Him:
He wanted grounds against the Lord... The Lord points to His open and constant testimony, but not to shield Himself. Others, unlike Him, might keep private circles and secret teaching — not to mention the darker plans behind deeds that avoided all light of day.
The high priest asked about the disciples. By that hour they had all run:
His disciples! Was the high priest afraid of them? Where were they?... His disciples had scattered like frightened rabbits at the first sign of danger. They were gone. The one who had boasted most about his loyalty to his Master had come back only to deny Him with oaths and curses, beside the kitchen fire with the court servants. His disciples could give the high priest no trouble. But His teaching! Ah, that was different. That ambitious Sadducee, a Jew who had turned away from his own faith, might well have trembled at His teaching. It was the complete condemnation of his life and his ways, and he knew it.
after_note: DELETE
The Lord sent them to the people who had heard Him teach. Their own law said the same thing — a case starts with witnesses, not with the accused:
The law required two or three witnesses to satisfy the court that there was a case to try. Their statement was the beginning of every proceeding. Until someone gave it publicly against a man, the law held him to be not merely innocent but unaccused... The law of the Jews also said, "Our law condemns no one to death upon his own confession," and "it is a basic principle with us that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment."
- Question. The high priest asks about disciples and teaching — not to learn, but to find a charge, since none existed.
- Cover. The two questions hint that Jesus was a secret plotter; His answer is that He never had a private message at all.
- Witnesses. He does not defend Himself. He points to the people who heard Him teach. Under their law, a case had to start with witnesses, not with the accused.
- Illegality. Their own law condemned no one on his own confession. The question itself broke that law.
- Reversal. The prisoner has nothing to hide. The examiner is the one who should tremble at His teaching.
Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I taught always in [the] synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I have spoken nothing.
Jesus stands bound before the high priest, who questions Him about His followers and His teaching. He answers by pointing to a ministry carried out in broad daylight, with nothing to hide.
The high priest's opening question was not neutral. Asking about disciples and doctrine carried a suggestion, and the Lord refused it.
The high priest asks Him of His disciples and of His doctrine. Such questions implied that the Lord was a secret plotter against the authorities. The blessed Lord refuses that suggestion. He reminds the high priest that He spoke openly to the world, and taught openly in public places. In secret He had said nothing.
The court had no case, so it tried to build one from the prisoner's own mouth.
They asked about His disciples and His teaching to get something incriminating from His own lips. They wanted a basis for the death sentence they had already decided to pass. The other Gospels tell us that they looked for witnesses against Him and found none. That is why, when He pointed them to the witness of His hearers, they were so annoyed that they struck our Lord.
He referred them to His hearers instead of answering. Their own law shows why.
The law required two or three witnesses to satisfy the court that there was a case to try. Their statement began every proceeding. Until it was given in public against a man, the law counted him not merely innocent but unaccused. ... Further, the law of the Jews was: "Our law condemns no one to death on his own confession." And: "It is a basic principle with us that no one can harm himself by what he says in judgment."
John's account gives no answer from Jesus about His doctrine at all — only a redirection.
In what follows, it seems to me, Jesus takes hardly any notice of the high priest. He does not give an account of His teaching to him, but refers him to those who had heard Him: what He had spoken was in public. In the other Gospels, we do see Jesus reply when they asked Him who He was. But here the high priest's authority disappeared.
The effect is that the judge finds himself judged.
These plain words rebuked the high priest's obvious lack of judicial sense. They made him feel that he stood under the judgment of the Son of God, and not the other way round.
Jesus named two places, and the original wording marks a difference between them.
It was not to screen Himself that the Lord points to His open and constant testimony. Others, unlike Him, might build private circles and give secret instructions. Some even made darker plans that stirred up deeds which avoided all light of day. ... "In synagogue," without the article, for there were many; "in the temple," with the article, for there was but one.
Kelly's note on the phrase points back to Isaiah.
"In secret I spoke nothing." See Isaiah 45:17-19, Isaiah 48:12-18. Notice that the Lord says nothing about His disciples.
There, God says the same about His own speech.
Jehovah, the Creator, had not spoken in secret. He did not tell the descendants of Jacob to seek Him in vain. He speaks righteousness.
Kelly noticed what is missing from the answer. Mawson draws out the situation behind it.
His disciples had scattered like frightened rabbits at the first sign of danger. They were gone. The one who had boasted most about his loyalty to his Master had come back only to deny Him with oaths and curses among the court servants by the kitchen fire. His disciples could give the high priest no trouble, but His doctrine! Ah, that was different. At His teaching that ambitious Sadducee, a Jew who had turned from the faith, might well have trembled. It condemned his whole life and ways, and he knew it.
Openness marks Christianity itself, and Jesus told His followers to live the same way.
The glory of Christianity is AN OPEN BIBLE. ... Our Lord tells us that there is nothing secret that shall not be revealed, and instructed His disciples: "What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops." (Matthew 10:27)
- Open question. The high priest's question hinted that Jesus was a secret plotter. It aimed to draw one self-incriminating word to back a sentence already decided.
- Open answer. He pointed to the synagogues (many) and the temple (one), where He always taught in public. He refused to accuse Himself, as their own law required.
- Open record. He sent the court to those who had heard Him, the witnesses their law demanded. The judge found himself standing under the judgment of the Son of God.
- Open God. Isaiah says the same of God. He has not spoken in secret, and He does not send seekers away empty.
- Open command. Jesus said nothing about the disciples who had fled. What He practised, He commanded: say in the light what you hear in the dark.
Why demandest thou of me? Demand of those who have heard, what I have spoken to them; behold, they know what I have said.
Late at night, Annas questions Jesus about His followers and His teaching, and Jesus points him to the people who heard Him. Was this a trial at all, or a hunt for something to convict Him with?
The examiner asked about two things: disciples and teaching. Neither question was neutral:
The question about His disciples and teaching aimed to get something incriminating from His own lips. It would be the basis for the death sentence they had already decided to pronounce. The other Gospels tell us that they looked for witnesses against Him and found none. That is why they were so annoyed when He pointed them to the witness of His hearers that they struck our Lord.
Part of the force of "Why do you ask me?" lies in who was asking:
It may be that the chief priests hoped Annas could get some admission out of the Lord that would help toward His condemnation. But since he was not high priest, and therefore had no authority, the Lord did not go into the matter with him. He had no real jurisdiction in such a case. "Why do you ask Me?" was the Lord's reply. "Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them; they know what I said." Who could find fault with that?
Jewish law required witnesses to speak first. It also barred a conviction built on the prisoner's own words:
Then the law required two or three witnesses to satisfy the court that there was a case to try. "Their sworn statement was the beginning of every proceeding. Until it was given in public against a man, the law held him not merely innocent but unaccused." … Further, the law of the Jews was, "Our law condemns no one to death upon his own confession," and "it is a basic principle with us that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment."
So when Jesus sends them to His hearers, He is not dodging. He is asking them to begin where the law says a trial begins.
The question hinted that His teaching was something private, kept for insiders. His answer points the other way:
It was not to shield Himself that the Lord points to His open and constant testimony. Others, unlike Him, might build private circles and give secret instructions. They might also have darker plans, leading to deeds that hid from daylight. … It was true and right, and no one could answer it. The only reply was a brutal insult from a Jewish underling who could support the high priest in no other way.
Notice what the Lord passes over. He says nothing about the disciples:
His disciples! Was the high priest afraid of them? Where were they? … His disciples could give the high priest no trouble. But His teaching! Ah, that was different. That ambitious Sadducee, who had abandoned the faith, might well have trembled at His teaching. It was the utter condemnation of his life and ways, and he knew it. But why did he ask Jesus about His teaching? He had already had testimony about it, and from his own officers. They had been sent to arrest Him on an earlier day, and came back without Him, saying, "No one ever spoke like this man!"
The answer reverses the positions in the room. The prisoner exposes His judge:
The Lord answers in perfect truth, and in a fitting way. He had spoken openly to the world, teaching in the synagogues and in the temple. He had nothing to hide. So there is no reason why He should be on the defensive, trying to explain His teaching to the high priest. Others had heard it. If a witness was needed, He Himself was not the one to give it. … The high priest is made to feel that he is standing before the tribunal of the Son of God, and not the other way round.
- Open. He taught in public — in the synagogue and in the temple, nothing in secret. Witnesses were there for anyone willing to look.
- Unaccused. Their own law held a man not merely innocent but unaccused until witnesses spoke. It condemned no one on his own confession. The question itself broke both rules.
- Trap. They had searched for witnesses against Him and found none. So they wanted words from His own lips to justify a sentence already decided.
- Silence. They ask about His disciples and His teaching. He answers only about the teaching. The scattered disciples were no threat; the teaching was.
- Reversal. No one could answer the reply, so an officer answered it with a blow. The examiner ends up standing before the tribunal of the One he thought he was examining.
But as he said these things, one of the officers who stood by gave a blow on the face to Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high priest thus?
Jesus has just answered the high priest's questions by pointing to His public teaching. Anyone in the room could check what He taught. What comes next is not a reply but a hand across the face — and a rebuke for the way He answered.
The men whose job was to keep order in the court were the ones who broke it.
No one could answer the Lord's reply. But as so often happens when there is no answer to an argument, the opposer falls back on insult and abuse. So the officers, whose job was to keep order, strike the Lord. The Lord meets these insults with righteous and fearless dignity.
The man who struck Him was an underling, and his motive was to prop up his superior.
The only reply was a brutal insult from a Jewish underling who would in this way support the high priest, since he could do nothing else.
The officer's outrage was on behalf of legal dignity, yet the room he stood in was itself lawless.
But at once a gross violation of justice occurs in the court, under the eyes of the high priest, who does not even reprimand it. An officer struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. He was irritated that the Lord had seen the high priest's breach of judicial order.
The officer's phrase assumes a court with real authority. The man questioning Jesus at this point was Annas, and one writer explains why the Lord gave him so little.
The Lord was first taken to Annas... But since he was not high priest, and therefore had no authority, the Lord did not go into matters with him. He had no real jurisdiction in such a case... One of the officers, however, struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. This was an indignity wholly undeserved.
His answer pointed at what the court had skipped: witnesses.
The whole court must have felt the power and justice of that rebuke, despite its excitement over its own injustice and its success so far. One of them, an officer, lost his head completely and struck Jesus with the palm of his hand. The quiet answer to that blow underlined how illegal the proceedings were without witnesses.
That calm covered more than His own feelings.
They rebuked Him and struck Him for answering, though His answering was an entirely righteous act. His calm reply shows how perfectly He was master of every feeling and of the whole situation.
Paul faced almost the same scene before another council and answered differently. That difference is used to mark what is unique about Christ.
He could righteously vindicate Himself in everything. He could even reprove His accuser and say, "If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike Me?" But even Paul, in such a case, had to take back his word, and say, "I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest."
Jesus told His followers to turn the other cheek. Under this blow He did not.
"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course we must be careful to understand these principles. This is not the spirit of defiance, for there can be real pride in that. It is non-resistance to evil. Look at the dignity of the Lord Jesus when they struck Him. He did not turn the other cheek. We must seek to understand the principle of the thing.
Commentators connect this treatment to an old prophecy of Israel's rejected King.
The rejection of the judge of Israel caused their long history of trouble, ending in the great tribulation. It is the Messiah, our Lord. They despised Him, insulted Him, struck Him with a rod on the cheek. He is called the judge of Israel, because the judge held the highest official position in Israel. They regarded a blow on the cheek as the greatest disgrace.
- The blow exposed them. When they could not answer His words, they used violence instead.
- The blow was itself the crime. A court set on guarding the high priest's honour struck an untried prisoner. The high priest said nothing.
- The blow met a title without authority. Annas was not the high priest, so the Lord did not argue His case with him.
- The blow drew out perfection. He did not hit back and He did not stay silent. He asked for evidence, master of every feeling — where even Paul had to take back his words.
- The blow rejected their King. They struck Israel's own Judge on the cheek — the deepest disgrace their world knew — and the nation's long history of trouble follows from that rejection.
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?
Jesus has just told the high priest to ask the people who heard Him teach in public. An officer answers with a blow to the face, and Jesus replies with a question that puts the court itself on trial.
The men whose job was to keep order in the court were the ones who broke it.
The high priest has only to ask those who had heard Him, and they would bear witness to His teaching. No one could answer the Lord's reply. But, as so often when an argument has no answer, the opponent falls back on insult and abuse. So the officers, whose job was to keep order, strike the Lord. The Lord meets these insults with righteous and fearless dignity.
He was struck without any charge, so He asks for the one thing a court must produce: evidence.
An officer struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. He was annoyed that the Lord had seen through the high priest's breach of court procedure. But evil could not draw from the Lord of glory any resentful, bitter response. Instead He asks: if He had spoken evil, let the officer bear witness of the evil, which is the only proper procedure in court. But if He had spoken well, why this violence? Again, only the Lord acts with the calm, judicial fairness of a righteous judge.
The blow came after a rebuke the court could not shake off.
The whole court must have felt the power and justice of that rebuke, despite its excitement at its own injustice and its success so far. The Lord's quiet answer to that blow showed that a hearing without witnesses was illegal.
He can safely ask for evidence, because there is none to find.
The reply of Jesus was conclusive. There was no evil to which any could bear witness: no one could convince Him of sin.
Paul later stood before a high priest who ordered him struck. Even he did not answer like his Master.
Brought before the Council, the apostle begins by declaring his innocence. "And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth." This was violence, certainly. But it came from Paul's own self-justification, not from testimony borne to Christ. Paul replies with an insult, calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall." The man had deserved it, true. But such an answer did not show the meekness of Christ. When he is reproved, Paul owns his fault.
Some argue from this verse that Jesus did not keep His own teaching about not resisting evil. What happened to Him later that night answers them.
Some people pare down and whittle away His words. They are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally. Their reason: when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He protested calmly while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary, it was One who committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return. When He suffered, He did not threaten. In fact He offered far more than the other cheek. They spat in His face, beat Him, and struck Him with their hands with the utmost contempt. No! the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.
He did rebuke the officer — but only with a question, and He said nothing about the rest.
But the Lord Jesus put His justified rebuke in the form of a mere question, and bore all other abuses silently. … As Christians, God has delivered us out of this present evil world, as Galatians 1:4 says. So we are not called to seek justice for ourselves. Of course, we must not drop our duty toward others if the authorities ask for it (as a witness in court, for example).
- Witness asked. Jesus taught in the open, so He sent His judges to the people who heard Him. The evidence was there for the asking.
- Witness refused. The officer had no answer, so he gave a blow instead. Insult is where opposition goes when the argument runs out.
- Witness demanded. His reply asks the court to name the wrong and prove it. That court was striking a man it could not charge.
- Witness impossible. No one could produce any evil, because there was none. The challenge still stands unanswered.
- Witness followed. He protested, bowed to the insult, and yielded to wrong instead of resisting it. That is the calling of those who follow Him.
Annas [then] had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
The verse records one movement. Annas has finished with his prisoner and passes Him on, still tied, to Caiaphas, the high priest. It raises two questions. Why did they take Jesus to a man who no longer held the office? And how much of the earlier questioning belongs to Annas, not Caiaphas?
Annas was not the high priest, but he was the high priest's father-in-law. That tie, and his reputation for judging cases, help explain the private hearing before the Lord went on to Caiaphas.
He belonged to the Sadducees. John tells us that Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of the Lord's death, was his son-in-law. People probably saw Annas as a man with experience in legal cases, and that may explain this informal questioning before they handed the Lord over to Caiaphas. The chief priests may also have hoped that Annas could get some admission out of the Lord to help toward His condemnation. But he was not high priest, and so he had no authority. The Lord did not discuss things with him. He had no real jurisdiction in a case like this.
Annas got nothing out of Him, and the next court was no better.
Annas is baffled, though he has not given up his malice, and he sends Him bound to Caiaphas. John takes no further notice of that trial. It was hardly a trial in form, and it was decided before it began.
Commentators differ over where verse 24 belongs. Some read the hearing of verses 19–23 as Annas's, so that our verse closes it:
The hearing before Annas continued till verse 24. The right translation there is, "Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Only John reports this hearing. He gives no account of the hearing before Caiaphas, as the other Gospels do. It may be that both of them were occupying the palace of the high priest. But it was Caiaphas who had urged the death of the Lord.
Others take the verse as a parenthesis dropped in to prevent a wrong assumption — that the questioning was Caiaphas's all along:
Verse 24 is meant parenthetically, to correct the hasty assumption that the first general questioning was before Annas, to whom Christ was led first; whereas it really was before Caiaphas, to whom Annas sent Him "bound," though it may probably have been only across the same courtyard.
Others place that hearing before Caiaphas, and some manuscripts even moved the verse:
Most commentators think this verse should come between verses 13 and 14. Some Greek and Syriac manuscripts put it there, and Cyril of Alexandria read it that way. They hold that the questioning and the striking took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Other writers think John describes only the informal hearing before Annas, and so passes over the trial by Caiaphas.
The one detail John insists on is the rope. It was not strength that failed.
Only think of the blessed Lord being bound! They had bound Him before, and it seems they had untied that bond. Now they bind Him again. When they bound Samson, how easily he broke the cords! How much easier for our blessed Lord to do so! But no; the hour had come, and He was going to the cross to secure eternal salvation for you and me.
The next court had more than ropes waiting for Him.
They take Him, and bind Him fast. One Gospel says, "Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Annas mocks Him, and sends Him to his son-in-law, Caiaphas. There He is jeered at, mocked, spat on, and struck with rods... That is what man will do to Jesus, the Son of God... He bears it all in patient grace.
Two men shared the title in one night, and both wanted the same verdict. That is the state Israel's priesthood had reached.
Here, then, we see what the earthly priesthood is like according to the mind of God. It is not what the history of failing Israel shows. That history ends with two wicked men filling the place of high priest at the same time, plotting together to crucify their Messiah.
John sets the sending of Jesus and the denial of Peter side by side.
But the only one in this terrible scene who really loved and knew the Lord takes the lowest place of all. Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas, and Peter warmed himself while he denied his Lord; for the moment, he was morally one of them. Peter and Judas, apostles; Pilate and Herod, Gentile rulers; Annas and Caiaphas, high priests. Never was there such a company before.
- Bound — the ropes held Him because He allowed it. He could have snapped them as easily as Samson snapped his cords. But He was going to the cross.
- Bound to a man without authority — Annas was no longer high priest and had no real jurisdiction. So the Lord gave him nothing, and the hearing settled nothing.
- Bound to a verdict already fixed — Annas got nowhere, so he passed Him on to Caiaphas. That trial was decided before it began.
- Bound by a ruined priesthood — Israel's priesthood ends with two men in one office at once. They agreed on one thing: they wanted their Messiah dead.
- Bound while a friend denied Him — Jesus goes from court to court. Peter stands warming himself, and for that moment he belongs with the crowd, not with his Lord.