The Judgment of the Lord by the High Priests

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

Taking the Lord Jesus, the enemies led Him bound (St. John) to the house where the chief priests lived. Supplementing the testimony of the first three Evangelists, St. John alone mentions that the Lord was first brought to Annas, who gave Him a preliminary interrogation, and then sent Him to Caiaphas. St. John immediately explains why the Lord was brought first to Annas, and not to Caiaphas, who was the ruling high priest that year, and why Annas (or Annas, as Josephus calls him), "for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas." Those who took the Lord thought by this to pay special attention and honor to a noble relative of the ruling high priest, and besides, the old cunning Anna enjoyed special respect in his midst. It must be assumed, however, that Annas, after his removal from the office of high priest, continued to live in the high priest's house, especially since the new high priest Caiaphas was his close relative, so that the dwellings of Annas and Caiaphas had a common courtyard, although they were located in different sections of the large high priest's house.

St. John, supplementing the narratives of the first Evangelists, says that Jesus was followed not only by Peter, whose denial is narrated by all four Evangelists, but also by the "Other Disciple" — undoubtedly he himself was St. John. John was known to the high priest, to whom exactly and why it is unknown: according to tradition, by his fishing. So he went inside the high priest's court, and then told the doorkeeper to let Peter in. It was then that Peter's first renunciation took place, according to St. John, when, during the interrogation of the Lord by Anna, Peter stood by a fire lit in the courtyard and warmed himself.

The cunning Annas, not accusing Christ of anything, began to question Him only about what He taught and who His disciples were. In this way he deliberately set a dangerous tone for the whole course of the matter, throwing suspicion upon Jesus as the head of some secret conspiracy with secret doctrine and secret purposes. But the Lord exposed his cunning with His answer: "I have spoken plainly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple... and said nothing secretly." To prove this, the Lord offered to ask witnesses who heard what He said. In spite of the fact that there was nothing offensive to the high priest in such an answer, one of the servants, probably wishing to please the high priest, struck the Lord with his hand on the cheek, saying: "Is this how you answer the high priest?" Therefore, in order to stop the evil at the very beginning and bring the servant to reason, the Lord objected: "If I have said evil, show me what is evil; and if it is good that you beat me?" — that is, if you can prove that I taught the people something bad, then convict me of it, prove it, and do not beat me without any reason.

Further, St. John says that Annas sent Jesus bound to the high priest Caiaphas (v. 24). Probably, the Lord was led only through the courtyard of the same house, where the fire was lit and where Peter, who had already denied the Lord once, stood and warmed himself. What happened at Caiaphas' is described in detail by the first two Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Mark. All the chief priests, elders, and scribes gathered at Caiaphas, in a word, almost the entire Sanhedrin. Notwithstanding the dead of the night, they were all hastening to gather evidence against Jesus in order to prepare all the necessary supplies for the next official session of the Sanhedrin this morning, at which they could formally pronounce His death sentence. To do this, they began to look for false witnesses who could accuse Jesus of some criminal offense, "and they did not find him." Finally, two false witnesses came, and the law required two, but no less, to condemn the accused (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6, etc.). They pointed to the words spoken by the Lord in Jerusalem at the first expulsion of the merchants from the temple, and maliciously distorted these words and put a different meaning into them. The Lord said then: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days" (John 2:19), but He did not say: "I can destroy it"; and "in three days I will raise it up" — according to the Church-Slav. "I will excite," in Greek, "egero," but he did not say, "I will create," which is expressed by a completely different Greek word, "ikodomiso." At that time He spoke of the temple of His Body, and the false witnesses presented these words of His then as some kind of boasting, in which there was nothing criminal either, which is why St. Mark says: "But even such a testimony of theirs was not sufficient" (Mark 14:59).

To all this Jesus was silent, for there was no need to answer such absurd and confused accusations (another witness, according to St. Mark, spoke somewhat differently). This irritated Caiaphas, and he decided to force such a confession from the Lord, which would give reason to condemn Him to death as a blasphemer. According to the judicial customs of that time, he turned to the Lord with a decisive question: "I adjure You by the living God, tell us, are You the Christ, the Son of God?"

"I adjure Thee" was the usual formula of the incantation, when the court demanded that the accused answer the question of the accusers and answer the truth, calling God as a witness. To such a direct question, and even under a curse, the Lord could not but answer, especially since He no longer had any need to conceal His Messianic Divine dignity, but on the contrary had to solemnly testify to it. And He answers, "Thou hast said," that is, "Yes, it is true, I am the Christ," and to this He adds, "From henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." This, of course, is a reference to Psalm 109:1, which depicts the Messiah as sitting at the right hand of God, as well as to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14 about the Messiah as the "Son of Man" coming on the clouds of heaven. By this the Lord wanted to say that all these impious judges of Him would soon see in many signs and wonders the manifestation of His Divine power as the son of God. "Then the high priest tore his garments and said, 'He blasphemes!'" – tearing the garments among the Jews was a common expression of sorrow and lamentation.

The high priest was forbidden to tear his clothes (Lev. 10:6; 21:10), and thus, by tearing his clothes, Caiaphas wanted to express his special sorrow, which even made him forget this prohibition. Of course, it was only hypocrisy on his part to declare the Lord's recognition of Himself as the Messiah – blasphemy. "What do you think?" – What is your opinion about this? Caiaphas asks those present, and receives the desired answer: "Guilty of death." As if they were already a condemned criminal, they began to abuse and mock Christ: they spat in His face, as a sign of extreme contempt and humiliation, they struck Him, beat Him on the head, on the cheeks, and, mocking, asked: "Prophesy to us, Christ, who struck You?" The latter shows that the whole trial was only a crude act, under which bloodthirsty bestial malice was hidden. They were not judges, but beasts who could not hide their fury.

Peter's Denial

(Matt. 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:16-18, 25-27).

The denial of Peter is narrated by all four Evangelists, although in their narrations a certain difference is immediately striking. However, this difference does not in the least concern the essence of the matter: the Evangelists only supplement and explain each other, so that from the comparison of all their testimonies an accurate and complete history of this incident is composed.

Peter was at the time of the trial of the Lord, first with Annas, and then with Caiaphas, in the same courtyard of the high priest's house, where he was led by the doorkeeper at the request of St. John, an acquaintance of the high priest. The fact that it was one and the same courtyard of the common high priestly house, in different sections of which the two high priests Annas and Caiaphas lived, removes the seeming contradiction between the narratives of the Evangelist John, on the one hand, and the other three Evangelists, on the other hand. St. John presents the denials as beginning in the court of Annas and ending there, and the other three Evangelists, who make no mention of the Lord's interrogation by Annas, present the matter as if all three denials took place in the court of the high priest Caiaphas. It is clear that it was the same common courtyard. When, with the assistance of John, who was known to the high priest, Peter entered the courtyard of the high priest, the doorkeeper who was leading him in, according to St. John, said to him: "And you are not one of the disciples of this man?"

However, the maidservant did not leave him alone and, according to St. Mark (14:67), gazing into his face illuminated by fire, affirmatively said: "And you were with Jesus of Nazareth," and also said to others: "This is one of them" (Luke 22:36). Then Peter continued the same denial, saying: "I do not know Him" (Luke 22:57), "I do not know and do not understand what you say" (Mark 14:68 and Matt. 26:70). Thus was accomplished the first renunciation, which began at the gate and ended at the fire. As St. Mark testifies, Peter, apparently wishing to get rid of the intractable doorkeeper, went away from the fire to the front of the courtyard, on the vestibule, to the gate, in order to flee in case of need. So a lot of time passed. Seeing him again, the same maidservant (Mark 14:69) began to say to those standing there: "This is one of them." She was joined by another maidservant (Matthew 26:71), who also said, "This one was with Jesus of Nazareth." Someone else said to Peter: "And you are one of them" (Luke 22:58). Peter again changed his place and again stood by the fire, but even then some (John 18:25) began to say: "Are you not also one of His disciples?" About an hour passed after the second renunciation (Luke 22:59).