Reflect: John now shifts the scene from Peter’s first denial, to what is transpiring inside. To give a historical perspective, let’s look at what The New NIV Application Commentary says about this encounter between Jesus and Annas (the High Priest’s father-in-law and a previous High Priest).

“In a formal Jewish trial, the judge never asked direct questions of the accused but rather called forth witnesses whose words determined the outcome. If two or more agreed with the charges, the verdict was sealed. But Annas may not see himself engaged in such a trial. If it were a genuine trial, Caiaphas (the High Priest) would be presiding, but he is not present. This is like a ‘police interrogation’ of someone recently arrested. Yet if Jesus does utter something incriminating, Annas himself will become a witness against him. The words recorded here no doubt represent the barest summary of Jesus’ meeting with Annas, who probes two things: Jesus’ teachings and his disciples. To what extent is he a genuine threat? Does he have a strong following? Is he promoting some sort of conspiracy? Jesus’ sharp answer—pointing out that Annas should be talking to witnesses—unmasks the priest’s attempt to make Jesus’ incriminate himself. Twice Jesus demands that Annas produce witnesses and evidence; in other words, Jesus is demanding a triaL. Nothing he has said can be construed as incriminating. Annas is at an impasse. His probing has been unsuccessful. Therefore Jesus is sent on to the reigning high priest, Caiaphas.”