The Lord’s Trial Before the High Priests.

(John 18:12-23; Mat. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54-, 63-65).

Having taken the Lord Jesus, the opponents led Him bound (Saint John) to the house of the high priests. In complementing the first three Evangelists, Saint John is the only one to mention that the Lord was brought first to Annas, who conducted a preliminary interrogation, who then sent Him to Caiaphas. Saint John also explains why the Lord was first brought to Annas and not to Caiaphas — who was the ruling high priest for that year — as Annas (or, Annan as he was referred to by Joseph Flavius) “”was the father-in-law of Caiaphas.” The Lord’s captors thought that by doing this, they would show especial esteem and honor to the famous relative of the ruling high priest. Aside from this, the wily old Annas enjoyed special respect among his public. However, it must be assumed that after he was replaced as the ruling high priest, Annas continued to live in the high priests dwelling, especially as the new high priest was his close relative. Although both lived in the same residence and shared a common courtyard, they each had separate quarters in the large dwelling of the high priest.

In complementing the first Evangelists, Saint John narrates that Jesus was followed by not only Peter, but “so did another” — undoubtedly it was Saint John himself, as he was known to the high priest, even though it is unknown how he knew him: according to tradition — through his fishing. That’s why he entered inside the high priest’s courtyard, and then told the doorkeeper to admit Peter. According to Saint John, during the Lord’s interrogation by Annas, it was here that Peter’s first denial took place as he stood warming himself near an open fire.

The cunning Annas did not accuse the Lord of anything, but just asked Him what He preached and who were His disciples. With this, he intentionally set an ominous tone to further proceedings, having cast suspicion on Jesus as some kind of leader of a hidden conspiracy, with secret teachings and clandestine aims. However, the Lord showed up his cunning with His answer: “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. To prove this, the Lord offered to question the witnesses that had heard Him preach. Not withstanding that there was nothing offensive in this reply, one of the servants — apparently to impress the high priest — hit the Lord on the cheek with the palm of his hand, saying: “Do You answer the high priest like that?” Had Jesus endured this silently, it could have been taken that He accepted this blow as warranted, and the arrogance of the over-zealous servant would have increased through the silent acceptance of his action. Therefore, in order to sever the evil in its initial stage and enlighten the servant, the Lord objected: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” — i.e. if you can prove that I was teaching the people something bad, then reveal it, prove it, but don’t hit Me without any basis.

Saint John further states that Annas sent the bound Jesus to the high priest Caiaphas (verse 24). Apparently, the Lord was led through the internal courtyard of the same dwelling, where Peter (who had once already denied knowing Christ) was standing and warming himself in front of an open fire. Both Saints Matthew and Mark give detailed narrations about what transpired at Caiaphas’. His place saw a convergence of all the high priests, elders and Scribes — in a word, nearly all the Sanhedrin. Despite the late hour of the night, they all hurried to gather evidence against Jesus, so that they would have everything necessary for the other, official meeting in the morning of the Sanhedrin, where they could officially pronounce His death sentence. To this end, they began to seek false witnesses, who could accuse Jesus in some kind of criminal act, but “they found none.” Finally, two false witnesses came forth — as the law required that there be no less than two witnesses, in order to pass judgment on the accused (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6 and others). They referred to the words uttered by the Lord in Jerusalem, when He first drove out the traders from the temple, modifying them with an evil intent to give them a different meaning. At the time, the Lord said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). He didn’t say: “I could destroy it; and “in three days I will raise it up” — in Church-Slavonic “raise,” in Greek “egero,” but He didn’t say “create,” which is a completely different word in Greek: “ikodomos.” The Lord was speaking of the temple of His Body, while the false witnesses presented those words as some sort of a boast, which by its essence wasn’t anything criminal. That’s why Saint Mark states: “But not even then did their testimony agree (Mark 14:59).

Throughout this, the Lord remained silent, because there was no need to respond to such absurd and confused accusations (according to Saint Mark, another witnesses testimony was somewhat different). This was annoying Caiaphas, so he decided to compel the Lord to make such an acknowledgment, that would result in His death sentence as a blasphemer. According to the custom of those days, he turned to the Lord with a decisive question: “I put You under oath by the living God: tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?”

“I put You under oath” — was the usual formula of taking the oath, calling upon God to be witness. This was applied when the court demanded that the accused truthfully answer — without fail — the question put to him by the accusers. The Lord could not remain silent to such a direct question, particularly as it was put to Him under oath, and especially as He now had no need to hide His Messianic Divine worthiness. Indeed, now He had to triumphantly testify to this. And He answers: “It is as you said,” i.e. “Yes, it is true — I am Christ,” and further adds to this: “hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This of course, refers to the words of Psalm 109:1, in which the Messiah is envisioned as sitting to the right of God, and also — to Daniel’s prophesy in 7:13-14, as the “Son of Man,” coming on the clouds of heaven. What the Lord tried to say is that all these impious judges will soon see, through many signs and miracles, the manifestation of His Divine power as the Son of God. “Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy!” — to the Jews, the tearing of clothing was the usual expression of sorrow and lamentation.

Although it was forbidden for a high priest to tear his clothing (Lev. 10:6; 21:10), in doing so, Caiaphas wanted to express his especial grief, which even forced him to forget this forbiddance. Of course, this was just a hypocritical act on his part, so that he could declare the Lord’s acknowledgment of Himself as being the Messiah — a blasphemy. “What do you think?” — What is your opinion on this matter? — asks Caiaphas of those present, and receives the desired response: “He is deserving of death.” They then started to swear and mock Christ just like they would a convicted criminal: they spat in His face as a sign of extremely loathing and denigration, boxed His ears, beat Him about the head, His cheeks, taunting and asking: “Prophesy to us Christ! Who is the one who struck You?” i.e. if You are the all-seeing Messiah, then name the person — who You don’t know or cannot see — that’s hitting You. This last act shows that the whole court was a crude spectacle, which hid a bloodthirsty and savage hatred. These were not judges but animals, unable to contain their rage.