John 18:21-25
John 18:21 (KJB)
Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
Basically, what Jesus was saying here is that He had literally thousands of witnesses of His teachings. Surely, Annas could have found some that heard Jesus but if they did that, then those witnesses would have witnessed the truth about Jesus and then they would have no grounds to hold Him. Jesus was speaking candidly and was placing the burden of evidence upon them. If any of these witnesses can come forth and claim blasphemy, then let them, but there is no one that heard Jesus commit anything near blasphemy. They would have to pay false witnesses to create such a story. Many of the Pharisees and Sadducees heard Jesus preach and yet, they themselves could not accuse Him of anything wrong concerning His doctrine.
John 18:22 (KJB)
And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
A guard had struck Jesus accusing Him of speaking disrespectfully to the High Priest. He had given Jesus a slap in the face. However, the answer that Jesus gave in verse 21, was a good answer. He was not defending His teachings but He was telling them to let others come in and tell you what I said. Jesus had nothing to hide and so He knew that if true witnesses were brought in, then they would exonerate Him from all charges. It is like in court today, many defense attorneys will not put their client on the stand to testify but will bring in witnesses to do the testifying. So what Jesus did, was a perfectly legitimate judicial tactic and not deserving a slap by an overzealous guard.
John 18:23 (KJB)
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Obviously this officer did not know much about trials. Jesus tells him that if He spoke evil, then bear witness of the evil, but if He spoke properly, which He did, then why should He be slapped. This was also an illegal move by this officer because since when does the court mete out justice in the middle of a trial by means of personal attacks. It would be like in court today that a question is asked of a defendant and the bailiff does not like the answer, in the middle of the trial he slaps the defendant in the face. The officer could not bear witness of the evil because there was no evil committed. He was probably trying to get noticed by the High Priest, maybe for promotion.
John 18:24 (KJB)
Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
Annas could not extract any information from Jesus which would force a trial so he kept Jesus bound and then sent Him on to the next phase of the fake trial. Annas was not serving as High Priest that year but his son in law Caiaphas was the High Priest and now maybe with the official capacity of that office, they may gain the information needed to put Jesus on trial.
John 18:25 (KJB)
And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
Here we have the second of Peterís denials. He was still in the courtyard warming himself when it seems that a number of people had recognized him as having been one of the disciples of Jesus. Peter failed to remember that he cut off the ear of Malchus which would have drawn attention to him and that is what Jesus wanted to avoid. He wanted the attention focused on Him and not the disciples. So Peterís face would have been fresh in the minds of those who were in the Garden of Gethsemane. Especially since Jesus restored the ear of Malchus. I think it is quite interesting that you do not hear about Malchus in this entire trial. They must have sequestered him really fast so he could not give a positive testimony about Jesus.