Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 6

When we turn to John’s gospel it is clear that John knows the same story. As we read more closely we discover a striking difference, however. John does not tell of a gathering of the religious leaders for an official trial before a Jewish court. Jesus appears only before Annas who John identifies as the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest. Annas had been the high priest some years prior to the time of Jesus’ ministry. He and his family had dominated the office of high priest for a number of years. They were all appointed by the Roman government and shared in the administration of Jerusalem on behalf of the Romans. They were known for their collaboration with Rome and were despised by many of the common people and most of the Pharisees.

John skillfully intertwines the denial of Jesus by Peter with Jesus’ hearing before Annas by switching back and forth between what was happening in Annas’ house and in the courtyard below. Like Mark, John wants his readers to be hearing these two episodes together and to note the contrast between Jesus and Peter.  John has also introduced something new into the narrative – the presence of the beloved disciple whom John claims is known by the high priest and thus is the means by which Peter is able to enter the courtyard. Once this beloved disciple has arranged for Peter’s entry, however, he disappears from the scene. The presence of this beloved disciples and the thought that he is known to the high priest is remarkable and confusing, at least to modern readers of John’s gospel. Certainly John’s report that the beloved disciple is known to the high priest eliminates all the known disciples from the other gospels as being the beloved disciple. The mystery of just who the beloved disciple is grows and John does not relieve our curiosity. Speaking of him as an acquaintance of the high priest is also difficult to comprehend given the fierce animosity between Jesus and the religious leaders. We will not be able to resolve this riddle.

We need to recall that John does not tell his readers of a trial before the Jewish authorities. They never gather and Jesus in not interrogated before them. The only one present is Annas and his soldiers. Why doesn’t John tell about a “Jewish” trial? Likely the answer is that John has already recorded the “Jewish” trial of Jesus earlier. In the aftermath of the story of the raising of Lazarus John tells his readers that the Jewish authorities call a meeting of the council to discuss what they are to do. In that meeting the decision is made that Jesus must be eliminated because if he is not stopped the nation will be destroyed – the Romans will come and destroy the Temple and thus the nation. The high priest, Caiaphas, makes his declaration that it is better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish. All of this is very ironic. The Romans will come and destroy the Temple so the plot to kill Jesus will not prevent that. And Caiaphas’ verdict that one man must die comes to fulfillment in the death of Jesus. He does not realize what truth he speaks. The point is that John has already told his readers of the meeting of the Jerusalem religious leaders and their verdict. Jesus is tried in absentia in John’s gospel – so he does not need to record a second “Jewish” trial, thus the report of only a hearing before Annas. And when the hearing is over Jesus is bound and brought to Caiaphas who in turn brings Jesus before Pilate.