Skip to content
Translation
King James Version
Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
Why G5101 askest thou G1905 me G3165? ask G1905 them which heard me G191, what G5101 I have said G2980 unto them G846: behold G2396, they G3778 know G1492 what G3739 I G1473 said G2036.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
so why are you questioning me? Question the ones who heard what I said to them; look, they know what I said.”
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
Why are you asking Me? Ask those who heard My message. Surely they know what I said.”
Ask
American Standard Version
Why askest thou me? ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them. Behold, these know the things which I said.”
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
Why askest thou mee? aske them which heard mee what I sayde vnto them: beholde, they knowe what I sayd.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
why me dost thou question? question those having heard what I spake to them; lo, these have known what I said.'
Ask
See on the biblical-era map
All John Sites (Jerusalem)
All John Sites (Jerusalem) View full PDF
All John Sites (Levant)
All John Sites (Levant) View full PDF
The Last Week of Jesus' Life (With Reference Table)
The Last Week of Jesus' Life (With Reference Table) View full PDF

Map © Biblica Open Bible Maps · CC BY-SA 4.0

In the KJVVerse 26,807 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

John 18:21 captures a pivotal moment in Jesus' unjust trial before Annas, the former high priest, where Jesus masterfully defends the transparency of His public ministry. Instead of providing self-incriminating testimony in a clandestine interrogation, Jesus redirects His accuser to the countless witnesses who had heard His teachings openly in synagogues and the Temple. This response underscores His unwavering commitment to truth, His challenge to the illegitimacy of the proceedings, and His reliance on the verifiable nature of His message, even as He stands falsely accused.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: This verse is situated within the dramatic narrative of Jesus' arrest and initial interrogation, immediately following His betrayal by Judas and capture in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:1-11). After being bound, Jesus is first led to Annas, the father-in-law of the current high priest, Caiaphas (John 18:12-13). Annas begins to question Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine (John 18:19), seeking to establish grounds for accusation. Jesus' response in John 18:20-21 directly addresses Annas' attempt to extract a confession or incriminating statement in a private, unlawful setting. The subsequent events involve Peter's denial (John 18:15-18 and John 18:25-27) and Jesus being sent from Annas to Caiaphas (John 18:24), setting the stage for the formal Sanhedrin trial and later the Roman trial before Pilate (John 18:28-40).
  • Historical & Cultural Context: The interrogation of Jesus by Annas was a preliminary, illegal proceeding. According to Jewish law, trials were to be held publicly, during the day, and in a designated court, not in a private residence at night. Accusations required the testimony of at least two credible witnesses, and defendants were not compelled to incriminate themselves. Annas, though no longer officially high priest, retained immense influence and power, effectively acting as a power broker behind the scenes. His questioning of Jesus' "doctrine" and "disciples" aimed to uncover any subversive political or religious teachings that could be used to condemn Him. Jesus' insistence on referring to His public teachings highlights the stark contrast between the clandestine, unjust nature of Annas' inquiry and the open, transparent character of Jesus' entire ministry, which was conducted in full view of the public in synagogues and the Temple courts.
  • Key Themes: This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes in the Gospel of John and the broader biblical narrative. It underscores the transparency and integrity of Jesus' ministry, emphasizing that His teachings were never hidden but proclaimed openly for all to hear, contrasting sharply with the secretive plots of His adversaries. It highlights the theme of truth versus falsehood, as Jesus, the embodiment of truth (John 14:6), challenges the deceptive and unlawful methods employed against Him. Furthermore, it foreshadows the unjust suffering of the righteous servant, a theme deeply rooted in Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Isaiah 53). Jesus' calm defiance in the face of injustice also exemplifies divine sovereignty in human affairs, demonstrating His control even amidst His passion, as He willingly submits to the Father's plan while exposing the sin of His accusers.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • askest thou (Greek, eperōtáō', G1905): This verb, G1905, means "to ask for, i.e., inquire, seek." In this context, it denotes Annas' attempt to question Jesus, specifically to extract information or a confession. Jesus' use of the same word in His counter-question ("ask them") serves as a direct challenge to the legitimacy of Annas' method, redirecting the inquiry to proper, public channels.
  • heard (Greek, akoúō', G191): A primary verb meaning "to hear (in various senses)." Here, it refers to those who literally listened to Jesus' teachings. The emphasis is on the public nature of His ministry; His words were not whispered in secret but were audible to many, making them reliable witnesses.
  • know (Greek, eídō', G1492): Properly "to see (literally or figuratively)," but in the perfect tense (as here), it means "to know" or "to have knowledge." Jesus asserts that those who heard Him possess direct knowledge of His words, implying that their testimony would be readily available and verifiable, rendering Annas' private interrogation unnecessary and improper.

Verse Breakdown

  • "Why askest thou me?": Jesus' initial question is a rhetorical challenge, not a refusal to answer. It subtly rebukes Annas for conducting an illegal, secretive interrogation. Jewish law required accusations to be based on public testimony, not self-incrimination. Jesus is essentially asking why Annas is bypassing due process and seeking to extract information from the accused rather than from witnesses.
  • "ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them:": This is Jesus' direct instruction and defense. He appeals to the vast number of people who had publicly heard His teachings. He asserts that His doctrine was not clandestine but openly proclaimed, making it unnecessary and inappropriate for Annas to question Him in secret. This statement highlights the transparency of His ministry.
  • "behold, they know what I said.": The interjection "behold" (G2396, íde') draws attention to the undeniable fact. Jesus emphatically states that these witnesses possess full knowledge of His words. This serves as a powerful validation of His public ministry and a further indictment of Annas' underhanded methods, implying that the truth is readily available through legitimate means.

Literary Devices

The verse employs several powerful literary devices. The most prominent is Rhetorical Question, "Why askest thou me?", which serves not to elicit information but to challenge the premise and legitimacy of Annas' interrogation. This question subtly highlights the injustice and impropriety of the proceedings. Jesus then uses Appeal to Witness by directing Annas to "ask them which heard me," shifting the burden of proof from Himself, the accused, to the numerous public witnesses of His ministry. This also demonstrates Irony, as the very people who seek to condemn Jesus for alleged secret teachings are rebuffed by His insistence on the public nature of His words. The repetition of "what I have said unto them" and "what I said" functions as Anaphora (or a form of Parallelism), emphasizing the consistency and open accessibility of His message, leaving no room for accusations of hidden doctrines. Finally, the interjection "behold" acts as an Exclamatory Marker, drawing immediate attention to the self-evident truth that His teachings were widely known.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

John 18:21 profoundly underscores the integrity and transparency of Jesus' earthly ministry, revealing Him as the Light who came into the world, whose deeds were done openly, unlike those who prefer darkness because their deeds are evil (John 3:19-21). His refusal to engage in secret testimony before Annas is a powerful testament to His unwavering commitment to truth and justice, even when facing a corrupt system. This moment reinforces the divine nature of His mission, which required no hidden agendas or clandestine operations, but rather the bold proclamation of the Kingdom of God in plain sight. It also highlights the contrast between God's perfect justice and the flawed, often malicious, justice of humanity.

  • Isaiah 45:19 - "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right."
  • Luke 12:3 - "Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."
  • Acts 26:26 - "For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner."

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

Jesus' response in John 18:21 provides a profound model for believers facing scrutiny, opposition, or injustice. It calls us to live lives of integrity and transparency, where our words and actions consistently reflect our faith, leaving no room for hidden motives or secret agendas. Just as Jesus' ministry was public and verifiable, our witness for Christ should be open and accessible, allowing the truth of the Gospel to speak for itself through our lives. When confronted with unfair accusations or manipulative tactics, we are encouraged to stand firm in the truth, appealing to the clear evidence of God's work in and through us, rather than compromising our convictions. This verse reminds us that true conviction is not afraid of the light, and that ultimately, God's truth will prevail over all human deceit and injustice.

Questions for Reflection

  • In what areas of my life might I be tempted to hide or compromise my faith, and how can I cultivate greater transparency?
  • How does Jesus' example of calmly confronting injustice encourage me to stand firm in truth when faced with opposition?
  • What "witnesses" (e.g., my consistent actions, the fruit of the Spirit, the testimony of Scripture) can I point to when my faith or character is questioned?

FAQ

Was Jesus refusing to answer Annas' questions, or was He making a legal point?

Answer: Jesus was not refusing to answer but was making a crucial legal and ethical point. According to Jewish law, trials were to be conducted openly, with accusations based on the testimony of witnesses, not self-incrimination. By saying, "Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me," Jesus was challenging the illegitimacy of Annas' private, nocturnal interrogation. He was asserting that His ministry was public and His teachings widely known, and therefore, any proper inquiry should gather testimony from those who had heard Him, rather than attempting to extract a confession from Him in a secretive and unlawful manner. This was a sophisticated legal defense, affirming His innocence and the transparency of His mission, while simultaneously exposing the corrupt nature of the proceedings. His later declaration before Pilate, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth" (John 18:37), further underscores His commitment to truth and open testimony.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

John 18:21, with Jesus' steadfast commitment to the transparency of His public ministry, finds profound fulfillment in His identity as the ultimate Revelation of God. He is not merely a teacher of secret doctrines but the very Word made flesh, who dwelt among us, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). His open teaching in the synagogues and Temple (John 7:26, John 8:2) foreshadows the universal accessibility of the Gospel, which is to be proclaimed to all nations, not hidden in corners (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus' challenge to Annas' secret inquiry highlights His role as the light of the world, whose every action and word were designed to expose darkness and bring truth to light (John 8:12). Ultimately, His public suffering and death on the cross, witnessed by multitudes, became the most transparent act of divine love and redemption, fulfilling the prophecies of a publicly displayed sacrifice for the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:4-6, Romans 5:8). Thus, His insistence on public testimony in John 18:21 prefigures the open, undeniable, and universally proclaimed truth of His atoning work and resurrection, which forms the bedrock of Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Copy as

Commentary on John 18 verses 13–27

I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points(1.) (2.) Details[1.] [2.] Fine details

We have here an account of Christ's arraignment before the high priest, and some circumstances that occurred therein which were omitted by the other evangelists; and Peter's denying him, which the other evangelists had given the story of entire by itself, is interwoven with the other passages. The crime laid to his charge having relation to religion, the judges of the spiritual court took it to fall directly under their cognizance. Both Jews and Gentiles seized him, and so both Jews and Gentiles tried and condemned him, for he died for the sins of both. Let us go over the story in order.

I. Having seized him, they led him away to Annas first, before they brought him to the court that was sat, expecting him, in the house of Caiaphas, v. 13. 1. They led him away, led him in triumph, as a trophy of their victory; led him as a lamb to the slaughter, and they led him through the sheep-gate spoken of Neh. iii. 1. For through that they went from the mount of Olives into Jerusalem. They hurried him away with violence, as if he had been the worst and vilest of malefactors. We had been led away of our own impetuous lusts, and led captive by Satan at his will, and, that we might be rescued, Christ was led away, led captive by Satan's agents and instruments. 2. They led him away to their masters that sent them. It was now about midnight, and one would think they should have put him in ward (Lev. xxiv. 12), should have led him to some prison, till it was a proper time to call a court; but he is hurried away immediately, not to the justices of peace, to be committed, but to the judges to be condemned; so extremely violent was the prosecution, partly because they feared a rescue, which they would thus not only leave no time for, but give a terror to; partly because they greedily thirsted after Christ's blood, as the eagle that hasteth to the prey. 3. They led him to Annas first. Probably his house lay in the way, and was convenient for them to call at to refresh themselves, and, as some think, to be paid for their service. I suppose Annas was old and infirm, and could not be present in council with the rest at that time of night, and yet earnestly desired to see the prey. To gratify him therefore with the assurance of their success, that the old man might sleep the better, and to receive his blessing for it, they produce their prisoner before him. It is sad to see those that are old and sickly, when they cannot commit sin as formerly, taking pleasure in those that do. Dr. Lightfoot thinks Annas was not present, because he had to attend early that morning in the temple, to examine the sacrifices which were that day to be offered, whether they were without blemish; if so, there was a significancy in it, that Christ, the great sacrifice, was presented to him, and sent away bound, as approved and ready for the altar. 4. This Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas the high priest; this kindred by marriage between them comes in as a reason either why Caiaphas ordered that this piece of respect should be done to Annas, to favour him with the first sight of the prisoner, or why Annas was willing to countenance Caiaphas in a matter his heart was so much upon. Note, Acquaintance and alliance with wicked people are a great confirmation to many in their wicked ways.

II. Annas did not long detain them, being as willing as any of them to have the prosecution pushed on, and therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas, to his house, which was appointed for the rendezvous of the sanhedrim upon this occasion, or to the usual place in the temple where the high priest kept his court; this is mentioned, v. 24. But our translators intimate in the margin that it should come in here, and, accordingly, read it there, Annas had sent him. Observe here,

1.The power of Caiaphas intimated (v. 13). He was high priest that same year. The high priest's commission was during life; but there were now such frequent changes, by the Simoniacal artifices of aspiring men with the government, that it was become almost an annual office, a presage of its final period approaching; while they were undermining one another. God was overturning them all, that he might come whose right it was. Caiaphas was high priest that same year when Messiah was to be cut off, which intimates, (1.) That when a bad thing was to be done by a high priest, according to the foreknowledge of God, Providence so ordered it that a bad man should be in the chair to do it. (2.) That, when God would make it to appear what corruption there was in the heart of a bad man, he put him into a place of power, where he had temptation and opportunity to exert it. It was the ruin of Caiaphas that he was high priest that year, and so became a ringleader in the putting of Christ to death. Many a man's advancement has lost him his reputation, and he had not been dishonoured if he had not been preferred.

2.The malice of Caiaphas, which is intimated (v. 14) by the repeating of what he had said some time before, that, right or wrong, guilty or innocent, it was expedient that one man should die for the people, which refers to the story ch. xi. 50. This comes in here to show, (1.) What a bad man he was; this was that Caiaphas that governed himself and the church by rules of policy, in defiance of the rules of equity. (2.) What ill usage Christ was likely to meet with in his court, when his case was adjudged before it was heard, and they were already resolved what to do with him; he must die; so that his trial was a jest. Thus the enemies of Christ's gospel are resolved, true or false, to run it down. (3.) It is a testimony to the innocency of our Lord Jesus, from the mouth of one of his worst enemies, who owned that he fell a sacrifice to the public good, and that it was not just he should die, but expedient only.

3.The concurrence of Annas in the prosecution of Christ. He made himself a partaker in guilt, (1.) With the captain and officers, that without law or mercy had bound him; for he approved it by continuing him bound when he should have loosed him, he not being convicted of any crime, nor having attempted an escape. If we do not what we can to undo what others have ill done, we are accessaries ex post facto—after the fact. It was more excusable in the rude soldiers to bind him than in Annas, who should have known better, to continue him bound. (2.) With the chief priest and council that condemned him, and prosecuted him to death. This Annas was not present with them, yet thus he wished them good speed, and became a partaker of their evil deeds.

III. In the house of Caiaphas, Simon Peter began to deny his Master, v. 15-18.

1.It was with much ado that Peter got into the hall where the court was sitting, an account of which we have v. 15, 16. Here we may observe,

(1.)Peter's kindness to Christ, which (though it proved no kindness) appeared in two things:—[1.] That he followed Jesus when he was led away; though at first he fled with the rest, yet afterwards he took heart a little, and followed at some distance, calling to mind the promises he had made to adhere to him, whatever it should cost him. Those that had followed Christ in the midst of his honours, and shared with him in those honours, when the people cried Hosanna to him, ought to have followed him now in the midst of his reproaches, and to have shared with him in these. Those that truly love and value Christ will follow him all weathers and all ways. [2.] When he could not get in where Jesus was in the midst of his enemies, he stood at the door without, willing to be as near him as he could, and waiting for an opportunity to get nearer. Thus when we meet with opposition in following Christ we must show our good-will. But yet this kindness of Peter's was no kindness, because he had not strength and courage enough to persevere in it, and so, as it proved, he did but run himself into a snare: and even his following Christ, considering all things, was to be blamed, because Christ, who knew him better than he knew himself, had expressly told him (ch. xiii. 36), Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, and had told him again and again that he would deny him; and he had lately had experience of his own weakness in forsaking him. Note, We must take heed of tempting God by running upon difficulties beyond our strength, and venturing too far in a way of suffering. If our call be clear to expose ourselves, we may hope that God will enable us to honour him; but, if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves.

(2.)The other disciple's kindness to Peter, which yet, as it proved, was no kindness neither. St. John several times in this gospel speaking of himself as another disciple, many interpreters have been led by this to fancy that this other disciple here was John; and many conjectures they have how he should come to be known to the high-priest; propter generis nobilitatem—being of superior birth, saith Jerome, Epitaph. Marcel., as if he were a better gentleman born than his brother James, when they were both the sons of Zebedee the fisherman; some will tell you that he had sold his estate to the high priest, others that he supplied his family with fish, both which are very improbable. But I see no reason to think that this other disciple was John, or one of the twelve; other sheep Christ had, which were not of the fold; and this might be, as the Syriac read it, unus ex discipulis aliis—one of those other disciples that believe in Christ, but resided at Jerusalem, and kept their places there; perhaps Joseph of Arimathea, or Nicodemus, known to the high priest, but not known to him to be disciples of Christ. Note, As there are many who seem disciples and are not so, so there are many who are disciples and seem not so. There are good people hid in courts, even in Nero's, as well as hid in crowds. We must not conclude a man to be no friend to Christ merely because he has acquaintance and conversation with those that were his known enemies. Now, [1.] This other disciple, whoever he was, showed a respect to Peter, in introducing him, not only to gratify his curiosity and affection, but to give him an opportunity of being serviceable to his Master upon his trial, if there were occasion. Those that have a real kindness for Christ and his ways, though their temper may be reserved and their circumstances may lead them to be cautious and retired, yet, if their faith be sincere, they will discover, when they are called to it, which way their inclination lies, by being ready to do a professed disciple a good turn. Peter perhaps had formerly introduced this disciple into conversation with Christ, and now he requites his kindness, and is not ashamed to own him, though, it should seem, he had at this time but a poor downcast appearance. [2.] But this kindness proved no kindness, nay a great diskindness; by letting him into the high priest's hall, he let him into temptation, and the consequence was bad. Note, The courtesies of our friends often prove a snare to us, through a misguided affection.

2.Peter, having got in, was immediately assaulted with the temptation, and foiled by it, v. 17. Observe here,

(1.)How slight the attack was. It was but a silly maid, of so small account that she was set to keep the door, that challenged him, and she only asked him carelessly, Art not thou one of this man's disciples? probably suspecting it by his sheepish look, and coming in timorously. We should many a time better maintain a good cause if we had a good heart on it, and could put a good face on it. Peter would have had some reason to take the alarm if Malchus had set upon him, and had said, "This is he that cut off my ear, and I will have his head for it;" but when a maid only asked him, Art not thou one of them? he might without danger have answered, And what if I am? Suppose the servants had ridiculed him, and insulted over him, upon it, those can bear but little for Christ that cannot bear this; this is but running with the footmen.

(2.)How speedy the surrender was. Without taking time to recollect himself, he suddenly answered, I am not. If he had had the boldness of the lion, he would have said, "It is my honour that I am so;" or, if he had had the wisdom of the serpent, he would have kept silence at this time, for it was an evil time. But, all his care being for his own safety, he thought he could not secure this but by a peremptory denial: I am not; he not only denies it, but even disdains it, and scorns her words.

(3.)Yet he goes further into the temptation: And the servants and officers stood there, and Peter with them v. 18.

[1.]See how the servants made much of themselves; the night being cold, they made a fire in the hall, not for their masters (they were so eager in persecuting Christ that they forgot cold), but for themselves to refresh themselves. They cared not what became of Christ; all their care was to sit and warm themselves, Amos vi. 6.

[2.]See how Peter herded himself with them, and made one among them. He sat and warmed himself. First, It was a fault bad enough that he did not attend his Master, and appear for him at the upper end of the hall, where he was now under examination. He might have been a witness for him, and have confronted the false witnesses that swore against him, if his Master had called him; at least, he might have been a witness to him, might have taken an exact notice of what passed, that he might relate it to the other disciples, who could none of them get in to hear the trial; he might have learned by his Master's example how to carry himself when it should come to his turn to suffer thus; yet neither his conscience nor his curiosity could bring him into the court, but he sits by, as if, like Gallio, he cared for none of these things. And yet at the same time we have reason to think his heart was as full of grief and concern as it could hold, but he had not the courage to own it. Lord, lead us not into temptation. Secondly, It was much worse that he joined himself with those that were his Master's enemies: He stood with them, and warmed himself; this was a poor excuse for joining with them. A little thing will draw those into bad company that will be drawn to it by the love of a good fire. If Peter's zeal for his Master had not frozen, but had continued in the heat it seemed to be of but a few hours before, he had not had occasion to warm himself now. Peter was much to be blamed, 1. Because he associated with these wicked men, and kept company with them. Doubtless they were diverting themselves with this night's expedition, scoffing at Christ, at what he had said, at what he had done, and triumphing in their victory over him; and what sort of entertainment would this give to Peter? If he said as they said, or by silence gave consent, he involved himself in sin; if not, he exposed himself to danger. If Peter had not so much courage as to appear publicly for his Master, yet he might have had so much devotion as to retire into a corner, and weep in secret for his Master's sufferings, and his own sin in forsaking him; if he could not have done good, he might have kept out of the way of doing hurt. It is better to abscond than appear to no purpose, or bad purpose. 2. Because he desired to be thought one of them, that he might not be suspected to be a disciple of Christ. Is this Peter? What a contradiction is this to the prayer of every good man, Gather not my soul with sinners! Saul among the prophets is not so absurd as David among the Philistines. Those that deprecate the lot of the scornful hereafter should dread the seat of the scornful now. It is ill warming ourselves with those with whom we are in danger of burning ourselves, Ps. cxli. 4.

IV. Peter, Christ's friend, having begun to deny him, the high priest, his enemy, begins to accuse him, or rather urges him to accuse himself, v. 19-21. It should seem, the first attempt was to prove him a seducer, and a teacher of false doctrine, which this evangelist relates; and, when they failed in the proof of this, then they charged him with blasphemy, which is related by the other evangelists, and therefore omitted here. Observe,

1.The articles or heads upon which Christ was examined (v. 19): concerning his disciples and his doctrine. Observe,

(1.)The irregularity of the process; it was against all law and equity. They seize him as a criminal, and now that he is their prisoner they have nothing to lay to his charge; no libel, no prosecutor; but the judge himself must be the prosecutor, and the prisoner himself the witness, and, against all reason and justice, he is put on to be his own accuser.

(2.)The intention. The high priest then (oun—therefore, which seems to refer to v. 14), because he had resolved that Christ must be sacrificed to their private malice under colour of the public good, examined him upon those interrogatories which would touch his life. He examined him, [1.] Concerning his disciples, that he might charge him with sedition, and represent him as dangerous to the Roman government, as well as to the Jewish church. He asked him who were his disciples—what number they were—of what country—what were their names and characters, insinuating that his scholars were designed for soldiers, and would in time become a formidable body. Some think his question concerning his disciples was, "What is now become of them all? Where are they? Why do they not appear?" upbraiding him with their cowardice in deserting him, and thus adding to the affliction of it. There was something significant in this, that Christ's calling and owning his disciples was the first thing laid to his charge, for it was for their sakes that he sanctified himself and suffered. [2.] Concerning his doctrine, that they might charge him with heresy, and bring him under the penalty of the law against false prophets, Deut. xiii. 9, 10. This was a matter properly cognizable in that court (Deut. xvii. 12), therefore a prophet could not perish but at Jerusalem, where that court sat. They could not prove any false doctrine upon him; but they hoped to extort something from him which they might distort to his prejudice, and to make him an offender for some word or other, Isa. xxix. 21. They said nothing to him concerning his miracles, by which he had done so much good, and proved his doctrine beyond contradiction, because of these they were sure they could take no hold. Thus the adversaries of Christ while they are industriously quarrelling with his truth, willfully shut their eyes against the evidences of it, and take no notice of them.

2.The appeal Christ made, in answer to these interrogatories. (1.) As to his disciples, he said nothing, because it was an impertinent question; if his doctrine was sound and good, his having disciples to whom to communicate it was no more than what was practised and allowed by their own doctors. If Caiaphas, in asking him concerning his disciples, designed to ensnare them, and bring them into trouble, it was in kindness to them that Christ said nothing of them, for he had said, Let these go their way. If he meant to upbraid him with their cowardice, no wonder that he said nothing, for

he would say nothing to condemn them, and could say nothing to justify them. (2.) As to his doctrine, he said nothing in particular, but in general referred himself to those that heard him, being not only made manifest to God, but made manifest also in their consciences, v. 20, 21.

[1.]He tacitly charges his judges with illegal proceedings. He does not indeed speak evil of the rulers of the people, nor say now to these princes, You are wicked; but he appeals to the settled rules of their own court, whether they dealt fairly by him. Do you indeed judge righteously? Ps. lviii. 1. So here, Why ask you me? Which implies two absurdities in judgment: First, "Why ask you me now concerning my doctrine, when you have already condemned it?" They had made an order of court for excommunicating all that owned him (ch. ix. 22), had issued out a proclamation for apprehending him; and now they come to ask what his doctrine is! Thus was he condemned, as his doctrine and cause commonly are, unheard. Secondly, "Why ask you me? Must I accuse myself, when you have no evidence against me?"

[2.]He insists upon his fair and open dealing with them in the publication of his doctrine, and justifies himself with this. The crime which the sanhedrim by the law was to enquire after was the clandestine spreading of dangerous doctrines, enticing secretly, Deut. xiii. 6. As to this, therefore, Christ clears himself very fully. First, As to the manner of his preaching. He spoke openly, parresia—with freedom and plainness of speech; he did not deliver things ambiguously, as Apollo did his oracles. Those that would undermine the truth, and spread corrupt notions, seek to accomplish their purpose by sly insinuation, putting queries, starting difficulties, and asserting nothing; but Christ explained himself fully, with, Verily, verily, I say unto you; his reproofs were free and bold, and his testimonies express against the corruptions of the age. Secondly, As to the persons he preached to: He spoke to the world, to all that had ears to hear, and were willing to hear him, high or low, learned or unlearned, Jew or Gentile, friend or foe. His doctrine feared not the censure of a mixed multitude; nor did he grudge the knowledge of it to any (as the masters of some rare invention commonly do), but freely communicated it, as the sun does his beams. Thirdly, As to the places he preached in. When he was in the country, he preached ordinarily in the synagogues—the places of meeting for worship, and on the sabbath-day-the time of meeting; when he came up to Jerusalem, he preached the same doctrine in the temple at the time of the solemn feasts, when the Jews from all parts assembled there; and though he often preached in private houses, and on mountains, and by the sea-side, to show that his word and worship were not to be confined to temples and synagogues, yet what he preached in private was the very same with what he delivered publicly. Note, The doctrine of Christ, purely and plainly preached, needs not be ashamed to appear in the most numerous assembly, for it carries its own strength and beauty along with it. What Christ's faithful ministers say they would be willing all the world should hear. Wisdom cries in the places of concourse, Prov. i. 21; viii. 3; ix. 3. Fourthly, As to the doctrine itself. He said nothing in secret contrary to what he said in public, but only by way of repetition and explication: In secret have I said nothing; as if he had been either suspicious of the truth of it, or conscious of any ill design in it. He sought no corners, for he feared no colours, nor said any thing that he needed to be ashamed of; what he did speak in private to his disciples he ordered them to proclaim on the house-tops, Matt. x. 27. God saith of himself (Isa. xlv. 19), I have not spoken in secret; his commandment is not hidden, Deut. xxx. 11. And the righteousness of faith speaks in like manner, Rom. x. 6. Veritas nihil metuit nisi abscondi—truth fears nothing but concealment.—Tertullian.

[3.]He appeals to those that had heard him, and desires that they might be examined what doctrine he had preached, and whether it had that dangerous tendency that was surmised: "Ask those that heard me what I said unto them; some of them may be in court, or may be sent for out of their beds." He means not his friends and followers, who might be presumed to speak in his favour, but, Ask any impartial hearer; ask your own officers. Some think he pointed to them, when he said, Behold, they know what I said, referring to the report which they had made of his preaching (ch. vii. 46), Never man spoke like this man. Nay, you may ask some upon the bench; for it is probable that some of them had heard him, and had been put to silence by him. Note, The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and has so much right and reason on its side that those who will judge impartially cannot but witness to it.

V. While the judges were examining him, the servants that stood by were abusing him, v. 22, 23.

1.It was a base affront which one of the officers gave him; though he spoke with so much calmness and convincing evidence, this insolent fellow struck him with the palm of his hand, probably on the side of his head or face, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? as if he had behaved himself rudely to the court.

(1.)He struck him, edoke rhapisma—he gave him a blow. Some think it signifies a blow with a rod or wand, from rhabdos, or with the staff which was the badge of his office. Now the scripture was fulfilled (Isa. l. 6), I gave my cheeks, eis rhapismata (so the LXX.) to blows, the word here used. And Mic. v. 1, They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek; and the type answered (Job xvi. 10), They have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully. It was unjust to strike one that neither said nor did amiss; it was insolent for a mean servant to strike one that was confessedly a person of account; it was cowardly to strike one that had his hands tied; and barbarous to strike a prisoner at the bar. Here was a breach of the peace in the face of the court, and yet the judges countenanced it. Confusion of face was our due; but Christ here took it to himself: "Upon me be the curse, the shame."

(2.)He checked him in a haughty imperious manner: Answerest thou the high priest so? As if the blessed Jesus were not good enough to speak to his master, or not wise enough to know how to speak to him, but, like a rude and ignorant prisoner, must be controlled by the jailor, and taught how to behave. Some of the ancients suggest that this officer was Malchus, who owed to Christ the healing of his ear, and the saving of his head, and yet made him this ill return. But, whoever it was, it was done to please the high priest, and to curry favour with him; for what he said implied a jealousy for the dignity of the high priest. Wicked rulers will not want wicked servants, who will help forward the affliction of those whom their masters persecute. There was a successor of this high priest that commanded the bystanders to smite Paul thus on the mouth, Acts xxiii. 2. Some think this officer took himself to be affronted by Christ's appeal to those about him concerning his doctrine, as if he would have vouched him to be a witness; and perhaps he was one of those officers that had spoken honourably of him (ch. vii. 46), and, lest he should now be thought a secret friend to him, he thus appears a bitter enemy.

2.Christ bore this affront with wonderful meekness and patience (v. 23): "If I have spoken evil, in what I have now said, bear witness of the evil. Observe it to the court, and let them judge of it, who are the proper judges; but if well, and as it did become me, why smitest thou me?" Christ could have answered him with a miracle of wrath, could have struck him dumb or dead, or have withered the hand that was lifted up against him. But this was the day of his patience and suffering, and he answered him with the meekness of wisdom, to teach us not to avenge ourselves, not to render railing for railing, but with the innocency of the dove to bear injuries, even when with the wisdom of the serpent, as our Saviour, we show the injustice of them, and appeal to the magistrate concerning them. Christ did not here turn the other cheek, by which it appears that that rule, Matt. v. 39, is not to be understood literally; a man may possibly turn the other cheek, and yet have his heart full of malice; but, comparing Christ's precept with his pattern, we learn, (1.) That in such cases we must not be our own avengers, nor judges in our own cause. We must rather receive than give the second blow, which makes the quarrel; we are allowed to defend ourselves, but not to avenge ourselves: the magistrate (if it be necessary for the preserving of the public peace, and the restraining and terrifying of evil-doers) is to be the avenger, Rom. xiii. 4. (2.) Our resentment of injuries done us must always be rational, and never passionate; such Christ's here was; when he suffered, he reasoned, but threatened not. He fairly expostulated with him that did him the injury, and so may we. (3.) When we are called out to suffering, we must accommodate ourselves to the inconveniences of a suffering state, with patience, and by one indignity done us be prepared to receive another, and to make the best of it.

VI. While the servants were thus abusing him, Peter was proceeding to deny him, v. 25-27. It is a sad story, and none of the least of Christ's sufferings.

1.He repeated the sin the second time, v. 25. While he was warming himself with the servants, as one of them, they asked him, Art not thou one of his disciples? What dost thou here among us? He, perhaps, hearing that Christ was examined about his disciples, and fearing he should be seized, or at least smitten, as his Master was, if he should own it, flatly denied it, and said, I am not.

(1.)It was his great folly to thrust himself into the temptation, by continuing in the company of those that were unsuitable for him, and that he had nothing to do with. He staid to warm himself; but those that warm themselves with evil doers grow cold towards good people and good things, and those that are fond of the devil's fire-side are in danger of the devil's fire. Peter might have stood by his Master at the bar, and have warmed himself better than here, at the fire of his Master's love, which many waters could not quench, Cant. viii. 6, 7. He might there have warmed himself with zeal for his Master, and indignation at his persecutors; but he chose rather to warm with them than to warm against them. But how could one (one disciple) be warm alone? Eccl. iv. 11.

(2.)It was his great unhappiness that he was again assaulted by the temptation; and no other could be expected, for this was a place, this an hour, of temptation. When the judge asked Christ about his disciples, probably the servants took the hint, and challenged Peter for one of them, "Answer to thy name." See here, [1.] The subtlety of the tempter in running down one whom he saw falling, and mustering a greater force against him; not a maid now, but all the servants. Note, Yielding to one temptation invites another, and perhaps a stronger. Satan redoubles his attacks when we give ground. [2.] The danger of bad company. We commonly study to approve ourselves to those with whom we choose to associate; we value ourselves upon their good word and covet to stand right in their opinion. As we choose our people we choose our praise, and govern ourselves accordingly; we are therefore concerned to make the first choice well, and not to mingle with those whom we cannot please without displeasing God.

(3.)It was his great weakness, nay, it was his great wickedness, to yield to the temptation, and to say, I am not one of his disciples, as one ashamed of that which was his honour, and afraid of suffering for it, which would have been yet more his honour. See how the fear of man brings a snare. When Christ was admired, and caressed, and treated with respect, Peter pleased himself, and perhaps prided himself, in this, that he was a disciple of Christ, and so put in for a share in the honours done to his Master. Thus many who seem fond of the reputation of religion when it is in fashion are ashamed of the reproach of it; but we must take it for better and worse.

2.He repeated the sin the third time, v. 26, 27. Here he was attacked by one of the servants, who was kinsman to Malchus, who, when he heard Peter deny himself to be a disciple of Christ, gave him the lie with great assurance: "Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Witness my kinsman's ear." Peter then denied again, as if he knew nothing of Christ, nothing of the garden, nothing of all this matter.

(1.)This third assault of the temptation was more close than the former: before his relation to Christ was only suspected, here it is proved upon him by one that saw him with Jesus, and saw him draw his sword in his defence. Note, Those who by sin think to help themselves out of trouble do but entangle and embarrass themselves the more. Dare to be brave, for truth will out. A bird of the air may perhaps tell the matter which we seek to conceal with a lie. Notice is taken of this servant's being akin to Malchus, because this circumstance would make it the more a terror to Peter. "Now," thinks he, "I am gone, my business is done, there needs no other witness nor prosecutor." We should not make any man in particular our enemy if we can help it, because the time may come when either he or some of his relations may have us at their mercy. He that may need a friend should not make a foe. But observe, though here was sufficient evidence against Peter, and sufficient provocation given by his denial to have prosecuted him, yet he escapes, has no harm done him nor attempted to be done. Note, We are often drawn into sin by groundless causeless fears, which there is no occasion for, and which a small degree of wisdom and resolution would make nothing of.

(2.)His yielding to it was no less base than the former: He denied again. See here, [1.] The nature of sin in general: the heart is hardened by the deceitfulness of it, Heb. iii. 13. It was a strange degree of effrontery that Peter had arrived to on a sudden, that he could with such assurance stand in a lie against so clear a disproof; but the beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water, when once the fence is broken men easily go from bad to worse. [2.] Of the sin of lying in particular; it is a fruitful sin, and upon this account exceedingly sinful: one lie needs another to support it, and that another. It is a rule in the devil's politics Male facta male factis tegere, ne perpluant—To cover sin with sin, in order to escape detection.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 13–27. Public domain.
Copy as
John ChrysostomAD 407
Homily on the Gospel of John 83
"The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine." O the wickedness! Though he had continually heard Him speaking in the temple and teaching openly, he now desires to be informed. For since they had no charge to bring, they enquired concerning His disciples, perhaps where they were, and why He had collected them, and with what intention, and on what terms. And this he said, as desiring to prove Him to be a seditious person and an innovator, since no one gave heed to Him, except them alone, as though His were some factory of wickedness. What then saith Christ? To overthrow this, He saith, "I spake openly to the world, (not to the disciples privately,) I taught openly in the temple." "What then, said He nothing in secret?" He did, but not, as they thought, from fear, and to make conspiracies, but if at any time His sayings were too high for the hearing of the many.

"Why askest thou Me? Ask them which heard Me." These are not the words of one speaking arrogantly, but of one confiding in the truth of what He had said. What therefore He said at the beginning, "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true," this He now implieth, desiring to render His testimony abundantly credible. For when Annas mentioned the disciples, what saith He? "Dost thou ask Me concerning Mine? Ask Mine enemies, ask those who have plotted against Me, who have bound Me; let them speak." This is an unquestionable proof of truth, when one calls his enemies to be witnesses to what he saith.
John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 407
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Hom. lxxxiii. 3) As they could bring no charge against Christ, they asked Him of His disciples: The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples; perhaps where they were, and on what account He had collected them, he wished to prove that he was a seditious and factious person whom no one attended to, except His own disciples.

(Hom. lxxxiii) Or, He spoke in secret, but not, as these thought, from fear, or to excite sedition; but only when what He said was above the understanding of the many. To establish the matter, however, upon superabundant evidence, He adds, Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard Me what I said unto them; behold, they know what I said unto them: as if He said, Thou askest Me of My disciples; ask My enemies, who lie in wait for Me. These are the words of one who was confident of the truth of what He said: for it is incontrovertible evidence, when enemies are called in as witnesses.
Augustine of HippoAD 430
Tractates on John 113
"The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort, and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask those who heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said." A question occurs that ought not to be passed over, how it is that the Lord Jesus said, "I spake openly to the world;" and in particular that which He afterwards added, "In secret have I said nothing." Did He not, even in that latest discourse which He delivered to the disciples after supper, say to them, "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs; but the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of my Father"? If, then, He spake not openly even to the more intimate company of His disciples, but gave the promise of a time when He would speak openly, how was it that He spake openly to the world? And still further, as is also testified on the authority of the other evangelists, to those who were truly His own, in comparison with others who were not His disciples, He certainly spake with much greater plainness when He was alone with them at a distance from the multitudes; for then He unfolded to them the parables, which He had uttered in obscure terms to others. What then is the meaning of the words, "In secret have I said nothing"? It is in this way we are to understand His saying, "I spake openly to the world;" as if He had said, There were many that heard me. And that word "openly" was in a certain sense openly and in another sense not openly. It was openly, because many heard Him; and again it was not openly, because they did not understand Him. And even what He spake to His disciples apart, He certainly spake not in secret. For who speaketh in secret, that speaketh before so many persons; as it is written, "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established:" especially if that be spoken to a few which he wisheth to become known to many through them; as the Lord Himself said to the few whom He had as yet, "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops"? And accordingly the very thing that seemed to be spoken by Himself in secret, was in a certain sense not spoken in secret; for it was not so spoken to remain unuttered by those to whom it was spoken; but rather so in order to be preached in every possible direction. A thing therefore may be uttered at once openly, and not openly; or at the same time in secret, and yet not in secret, as it is said, "That seeing, they may see, and not see." For how "may they see," save only because it is openly, and not in secret; and again, how is it that the same parties "may not see," save that it is not openly, but in secret? Howbeit the very things which they had heard without understanding, were such as could not with justice or truth be turned into a criminal charge against Him: and as often as they tried by their questions to find something whereof to accuse Him, He gave them such replies as utterly discomfited all their plots, and left no ground for the calumnies they devised. Therefore He said, "Why askest thou me? ask those who heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said."
Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 430
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Tr. cxiii. 3) For what they had heard and not understood, was not of such a kind, as that they could justly turn it against Him. And as often as they tried by questioning to find out some charge against Him, He so replied as to blunt all their stratagems, and refute their calumnies.
Cyril of AlexandriaAD 444
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11
Why askest thou Me? Ask them that have heard Me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.

He rebukes those learned in the Law, for that they themselves sinned against the Law in which they took pride. For before He had been condemned, they passed premature sentence upon Him, and yet busied themselves in seeking for errors on His part. Why, then, He says, dost thou question Me, and call on Me to answer, Who have already endured your attack, and had punishment allotted Me before conviction? Or you may put another construction on what He said: Those who already hate Me, and receive with such extreme dishonour whatever I tell them of the things that are Mine, would not, perhaps, shrink from proclaiming what is false. Learn, then, from the lips of others. The search for witnesses would not be at all difficult, for these heard My words. Someone may, perhaps, imagine that He That knoweth the hearts and reins indicated some of the bystanders as having chanced to hear His words. But it is not so. For He referred to certain of the officers who once marvelled at His doctrine; and perhaps, to make our meaning clear, we ought to explain the time and occasion when this occurred. This same inspired Evangelist has told us, that once, when our Saviour Christ was preaching, and unfolding the doctrine concerning the Kingdom of Heaven to the assembled Jews, the teachers of the Jewish ordinances were sore enraged, and full of bitter envy of Him. and strove to remove Him from their midst. In the words of the Evangelist: And the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to take Him. But as our Saviour was continuing His long and full discourse, those which were sent by the Jews were convinced along with all the rest, and were more amazed than any one else among the multitude of His hearers. Thus speaks the Evangelist: The officers, therefore, came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why did ye not bring Him? The officers answered, Never man so spake. The Pharisees, therefore, answered them, Are ye also led astray? Observe how distressed at heart the Pharisees were, when they found that the officers had been at length convinced and sore amazed. The Saviour, then, knowing this, says: Ask them that have heard Me: behold, these know the things which I said. Either, then, He says, these know, looking at those who were then standing by, or else referring to the fact, that even they who ministered to the impiety of the chief priests themselves marvelled at the beauty of His teaching.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying John 18:21 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.