John 18:10

vv 10-12) Petter attacks

[10] Petter clearly thought that the time had come to use violence in an effort to save his master.

The disciples apparently sometimes carried swords, and Luke 22:38

Luke 22:38 ESV

38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

indicates that they had at least two on this occasion. Having a sword made sense when there were robbers and violent men to consider.

Acting without instructions from the Lord, he drew his sword and stuck the high priest’s servant. The other gospels mention that one of the disciples did this, John’s gospel is the only one that names Peter as the attacker.

Now peter undoubtedly intended to kill. It was as if Peter thought that he could prove his faith by the sword, when he was unable to do so with his tongue. Remember Jesus had already told him that him that he would deny Jesus 3 times.

It is possible (but not proven) that Peter holding the sword in his right hand, must have attacked the high priest’s servant from behind, because it would be near impossible to cut of the right ear if he was facing the servant.

If that was the case it is entirely possible that Peter deliberately chose a non-solider, and attacked him from behind. A shinning display of courage and honor.

It may be significant that John alone mentioned the high priest’s servant by name, Malchus. This is another piece of evidence that John had connections to those in the household of the high priest: John 18:16

John 18:16 ESV

16 but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.

It may also indicate that Malchus later became a Christian, because often people in the Gospels and Acts are named because they were known among the early Christian community.

[11] Jesus did not praise Peter for what he did; He told him to stop. This was to protect Peter as much as to protect those who came to arrest Jesus.

The cup of suffering and death had been given to Him by His Father, and He intended to drink it.

Luke, the physician, recorded how the Lord touched and healed Malchus’ ear at this point: Luke 22:51

Luke 22:51 ESV

51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.

[12] This verse also describes two different groups. The captain was the Roman commander and the officers of the jews were the temple security force.

What is unique about verse 12?

This was the first time that wicked men had been able to lay hold of Jesus and to bound Him. Treating Jesus as if He was a threat. Yet Jesus remained bound only because He surrendered to His Father’s will; hands that healed the sick and raised the dead could have easily broken these bonds.

We could say that in spiritual application, there were two ways that Jesus was bound.

Jesus was bound with the cords of love.

Jesus was bound with our bonds.

vv 13-14) Jesus lead to Annas

Annas was not the official High Priest but as father-in-law to Caiaphas, he was the one who put Caiaphas in office.

Annas was the power behind the throne in Jerusalem. He himself had been High Priest from A.D. 6 to 15. Four of his sons had also held the high priesthood and Caiaphas was his son-in-law.

There is a passage in the Talmud (is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law and theology) which says: “Woe to the house of Annas! Woe to their serpent’s hiss! They are High Priests; their sons are keepers of the treasury; their sons-in-law are guardians of the Temple; and their servants beat people with staves.

Clearly Annas and his family were notorious.

“At any rate, the Lord is led to Annas first, and we feel sure that there was a motive for that act. Annas, in some sense, had a priority in the peerage of enmity to Jesus; he was malignant, cruel, and unscrupulous enough to be premier in the ministry of persecutors” - Spurgeon

[14] This unknowing prophecy of Caiaphas is recorded in John 11:49-53

John 11:49–53 ESV

49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.

Without knowing, Caiaphas spoke the truth that is was good for Jesus to die for the people.

In that unknowing prophecy Caiaphas spoke logically. The good of the many outweigh the good of the one. It was moral though. It is wrong to put an innocent Man, God’s Messiah, to death.

The reason John reminds us of what Caiaphas said in chapter 11 is to show that the judgment against Jesus was already decided.

Believer’s Bible Commentary B. Jesus Arrested and Bound (18:12–14)

James Stewart writes:

This was the man who was the accredited guardian of the nation’s soul. He had been set apart to be the supreme interpreter and representative of the Most High. To him was committed the glorious privilege of entering once every year into the holy of holies. Yet this was the man who condemned the Son of God. History provides no more startling illustration of the truth that the best religious opportunities in the world and the most promising environment will not guarantee a man’s salvation or of themselves ennoble his soul. “Then I saw,” says John Bunyan, closing his book, “that there was a way to hell, even from the gates of heaven.”

vv 15-16) Peter and John follow

[15] Peter embarrassed himself at the Garden of Gethsemane with his sword. He is hoping for a second chance to show his loyalty, he followed Jesus to where He was held. Most believe that the other disciple was John himself, who had connections with the high priest and his household.

John wasn’t any better than Peter, after all he fled with the rest and now is sculking back to see what would become of his Master.

vv 17-18) Peter’s first denial

A simple servant girl who minded the door to the courtyard of the high priest’s house questioned Peter.

This first test of Peter’s loyalty seemed easy; he could have answered nothing, mumble something, or said, “I know Him.”

Her question to peter means that John was already known to her as a disciple of Jesus.

How does Peter respond to the girls negative statement? Instead of being loyal to Jesus, he denied being His disciple. This seems to have happened at the door and may have been a quick exchange that Peter didn’t give much thought to, yet even that was a clear denial of association with Jesus.

The sense that Peter was there not only because it was cold and he wanted warmth. Peter also wanted to blend into the small crowd so that he would not stand out. It was dangerous to be notice, because he was a disciple of the man arrested.

People like to try and use weird little differences in wording to prove inconsistencies. Luke is quite definite that they and Peter were sitting: so to oMatthew as to Peter. John seems to speak of them and Peter as standing… Oh no the Bible must be false. No the greek words used here are so frequently idiomatic to mean merely ‘to be stationary’, ‘to continue’, ‘to be there’, ‘to be’.

vv 19-24)Annas interrogates Jesus

Annas wanted to know about Jesus’ disciples, perhaps because of fear or jealousy. Then he wanted to know about His doctrine or teaching, what Jesus taught and believed that might be a concern to the religious establishment.

“Annas bore a very promising name, for it signifies clement or merciful, yet he was the man to begin the work of ensnaring the Lord Jesus in his speech, if he could be ensnared” - Spurgeon.

[20-21] Jesus told Annas that He did not have secret doctrine or teaching that could be revealed under interrogation. His teaching was open, in synagogues and in the temple. Jesus was telling him that He had nothing to hide.

“Truth is bold and barefaced; when heresy hides itself, and loathes the light.” - Trapp

Jesus wasn’t being uncooperative, only asserting His legal right. There was to be no formal charge against the accused until witnesses had been heard and been found to be truthful.

It was the high priest’s duty to call forth the witnesses first, beginning with those for the defense. These basic legal protections for the accused under Jewish law were not observed in the trial of Jesus.

For the Talmud states, Sanhedrin. C. iv. S. 1, “That- criminal processes can neither commence nor terminate, but during the course of the day. if the person be acquitted, the sentence may be pronounced during that day; but, if he be condemned, the sentence cannot be pronounced till the next day. But no kind of judgement is to be executed, either on the eve of the Sabbath, or the eve of any festival.

[22] This anonymous official began the physical abuse of Jesus that would end in His crucifixion. In His deity, Jesus knew his name; but as one of those who did not know what they did against God’s Messiah: Luke 23:34

Luke 23:34 ESV

34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

His name was graciously not recorded.

Though the name was not recorded their crime was. Without warning he strongly slapped Jesus and accused Him of disrespect to the High Priest… Who isn’t the high priest.

[23] Jesus asked both the unnamed official and Annas to justify this physical abuse. Jesus exposed the shameful truth, that they did not follow their own standards and practice of justice with Him.

[24] Annas had nothing to answer to Jesus. He sent Jesus on to a more official trial to the man who held the actual office of high priest, and sent Jesus bound as if He were a dangerous criminal.

vv 25-27)

v 28)

vv 29-32)

vv 33-35)

v 36)

vv 37-38)

vv 39-40)