←
Explanation for:
Matthew
26
:
57
But they holding Jesus led him to Caiphas the high priest, where the scribes and the ancients were assembled.
11
more explanations
& daily audio-books
spoken by
– enjoy in Theosis App –
Start your
Bible-journey
with explanations
& daily audio-books
only 4$* per month
{"arr":[{"author-name":"Jerome of Stridon","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88dcd3432c6dd41375498_Jerome%20of%20Stridon.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"Moses, following God’s directive, instructed that the high priests should inherit their role from their ancestors, ensuring an unbroken line of succession as described in Exodus 28-29. Josephus Flavius reveals that Caiaphas acquired the position of high priest from Herod for just one year. Therefore, it is understandable that the one who unjustly pronounces judgment is not regarded as the authentic high priest."},{"author-name":"Euthymios Zigabenos","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":11,"exegesis-text":"Both Mark and Luke recount similar events, but John offers a more detailed account, as he was an eyewitness to these occurrences. He notes that the officers and servants of the Jewish authorities apprehended Jesus and escorted Him to Annas initially, as he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest for that year. After thoroughly describing the events that transpired in Annas' residence, which the other Gospel writers did not include, John concludes with the statement that Annas sent Jesus, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest."},{"author-name":"Gladkow B.I.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88bf0ceef8c96e09a6521_Gladkow%20B.I..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"As the soldiers arrived in Jerusalem, they did not take Jesus before the high priest Caiaphas, who had previously demonstrated his animosity towards the Galilean preacher by declaring to the Sanhedrin that it was preferable for one person to die for the sake of the entire nation. Instead, they brought Jesus to his father-in-law Annas, referred to as Ananus by Josephus, a former high priest who had held that office for eleven years (see Jn. 18:13). Annas then sent Jesus, in chains, to Caiaphas, the legitimate high priest and his son-in-law."},{"author-name":"Makkaveiski N.K.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The historical evidence regarding the residence of Annas is minimal, while that of Caiaphas is considerably earlier and more established. Multiple accounts indicate that Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, constructed a church on the site of Caiaphas’ residence. A passage from the hagiography of Constantine and Helena, published by V. G. Vasilievsky, mentions, among other things, that the holy mother of the emperor \\"made the courtyard of Caiaphas.\\" Nicephorus Callistus, possibly referencing the same hagiographic sources, states in his ecclesiastical history that \\"in the palace of Caiaphas, Peter the apostle established another sanctuary.\\" This assertion is corroborated by various writers including Adrichomius, Quaresmius, and Zwinner, with Zwinner suggesting that the church he knew was newly built by Christians at the location of a church erected by Queen Helen. Sepp also provides evidence from Marinus Sanutus regarding this location.\\n\\nInterestingly, a pilgrim from Bordeaux does not mention this structure of St. Helena, which allows Tobler to question the historical reliability of the evidence surrounding it. Yet, even agreeing with Tobler, the testimony from the same Bordeaux pilgrim, who visited Jerusalem in 333 and noted the existence of Caiaphas' house beyond the walls of Elia Hadrian while traveling from Siloam to Zion, remains valuable. His description roughly matches the area where the current Armenian monastery resides, indicating that “the pillar where Christ was scourged” still stands there. Blessed Jerome, describing the pilgrimage site of St. Paul, also notes, “there they showed a column supporting the portico of the church, stained with the Lord's blood, to which they say He was bound and scourged.”\\n\\nFrom the earlier references, it is clear that Mount Zion, rather than the Church of Zion, is being referred to in these accounts. This highlights again the location of Caiaphas’ house, reaffirmed in Theodosius’ writings, who notes that the column on which Christ's shoulders were imprinted after the scourging was once in Caiaphas’ residence but was identified during his time as being in “holy Zion.” Both Antoninus Martyr and Arculphus also locate this important site within Zion, with Arculphus marking the scourging post on his map of the Basilica of Zion.\\n\\nAround the time of the Lord’s trials, the naming of places shifted from geographical locations to evaluation of different sacred spaces—Zion now being recognized as the foundational church structure established by Jesus with His apostles. This location was traditionally acknowledged for significant events, including the Last Supper and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples. Notably, from Zion to Caiaphas’ residence, which is now St. Peter’s Church, is about fifty paces, according to Theodosius.\\n\\nThe Church of Peter occupies the site of Caiaphas' house as tradition places the apostle's denial there. Various texts throughout the ages confirm this association, as well as the location of the high priest's house dictating where members of the Sanhedrin gathered, particularly during trials that affected Jewish law and tradition, including the condemnation of blasphemers and state offenders.\\n\\nIn examining the legality of such trials, it’s important to recognize that meetings of the Sanhedrin typically followed strict regulations concerning venue, timing, and participation, especially concerning capital cases. The trial of Jesus was characterized by irregularities due to the late hour and the hastily assembled court, as many members of the Sanhedrin were positioned in opposition to the actions of Caiaphas and his allies. This created an atmosphere of urgent secrecy, as legal proceedings were prohibited to commence at night, thus challenging the legitimacy of the charges brought against Christ.\\n\\nFurthermore, the Sanhedrin was constituted of various notable Jewish leaders, including priests, elders, and scribes with defined judicial authority, entrenching their decisions within the historical and cultural context of Jewish law. The recognition of their power varied; however, by the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin's authority was in decline due to external political pressures and internal disputes, which served to muddle legal proceedings leading up to the crucifixion. \\n\\nIn summary, the unfolding of these events reflects the complex interplay of tradition, legislation, and prevailing political circumstances in Jerusalem, where the enduring legacies of sacrifice and redemption echo the eternal truths at the heart of the Resurrection of Christ. The gathering for judgment in Caiaphas' house serves as a significant reflection on the spiritual battle of faith and the unfolding divine narrative leading to the ultimate sacrifice."},{"author-name":"Tichon (Pokrovski)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The chief priest inquired of Jesus regarding His followers and the doctrine He preached. The residence of Caiaphas was distanced from that of his father-in-law, Annas, by the breadth of Jerusalem; thus, the Lord Jesus, bound and surrounded by soldiers, made His way from Annas's dwelling to Caiaphas's through the streets of Jerusalem. Despite the late hour, the chief priests, elders, and the entire Sanhedrin congregated at Caiaphas's residence to officially conduct the trial of Jesus."},{"author-name":"Lopuchin A.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c891400ee1341634d2276d_Lopuchin%20A.P..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"While Christ was being arrested, the chief wrongdoers gathered in their nocturnal assembly, anticipating the offering, within the dwelling of their principal leader, the high priest Caiaphas. Initially, they brought the Divine Prisoner before Annas, the elder high priest, hoping that his wisdom and experience would assist his son-in-law Caiaphas in determining the best course of action to condemn Jesus without inciting the anger of the people. Aware of the unsuccessful initial questioning, Annas directed that He be delivered, still bound, to Caiaphas. This Caiaphas had previously advised the Jews that it would be more advantageous for one man to perish for the people. The council gathered in his residence, where all preparations for the condemnation of Jesus had already been made. \\n\\nThe Sanhedrin was typically recognized for its compassion and justice, mirroring the humane principles of the Mosaic law. Its mission was one of preservation, not destruction of life, and it was customary for the accused to have every opportunity for exoneration. When a trial commenced, it was the responsibility of the presiding judge to remind the witnesses of the priceless nature of human life and ensure they did not overlook aspects of their testimony that could benefit the accused. Legal tradition dictated that trials in serious cases should not occur at night, nor on the eve of the Sabbath or major feast days, and if a conviction occurred, sentencing could not be executed on the same day but must wait for the next. Such regulations were designed to ensure just outcomes; however, this assembly of the Sanhedrin, convened at Caiaphas's residence, was overtaken by a deep-seated desire to eliminate the Galilean, despised by the elders, and thus disregarded these principles entirely, acting more as an unlawful group of wrongdoers than as impartial judges. They were unable to proceed lawfully since they lacked a valid accusation against the Prisoner they had deceitfully apprehended. In all of Christ’s actions and teachings, they could find no justification for a death sentence; thus, they desperately sought a charge that, with some manipulation, could be framed as a public crime, one that would allow them to present Him to the Romans as a seditious threat. The only matter that could serve this purpose was His claim to Messiahship, to which all the judges’ thoughts were directed."},{"author-name":"Michail (Lusin)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c89550c567e172d15b3055_Michail%20(Lusin).png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Caiaphas and others convened the Sanhedrin to pass judgment on the Lord, as noted in Matthew 26:3. For further context, see the reference on Matthew 5:22."},{"author-name":"Philaret (Gumilevski)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c896f4b6fd32caa244b5d7_Philaret%20(Gumilevski).png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The compassion of Jesus, who effortlessly healed even those who opposed Him, His humility in submitting to divine will, and His challenges to the malice of others did not deter the wrongdoers. With brazen arrogance, they ‘laid their hands on Him’ (Mark 14:46) and bound Him as a criminal. Not solely through the treachery of Judas (Mark 14:44), but also due to the typical brutality of the Romans (Acts 21:33), they shackled the One who had willingly offered Himself to them. When wickedness loses the apprehension of God’s imminent power, it becomes reckless and defiant. Thus, those strong hands that raised the dead from their graves and extended mercy to the desperate are bound. It is a wondrous spectacle!\\n\\nDuring His trial, the Savior found Himself restrained in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 14:12; cf. Acts 21:33). It remains uncertain whether He was bound when responding to Annas; such treatment was not customary. However, when He was led before Pilate, the Gospel accounts indicate that He was placed in chains again (Matt. 27:2). After Annas found no grounds for accusation against the Nazarene, it was unjust for the high priest to subject an innocent man to chains. Sending Him to Caiaphas solely served to bring about a grim end to the proceedings. What a disgrace for Annas!\\n\\nWhile Jesus was at Annas' residence, the Sanhedrin members gathered at the high priest Caiaphas' location. Although it was late, the Sanhedrin was not weary; they were eager to pass judgment on the Nazarene Teacher, a moment they had long anticipated. Jesus was transported from Annas to Caiaphas. What transpired in this trial against Jesus? In the accounts provided by the Evangelists regarding the initial trial before the Sanhedrin, the focus starts with the actions of the chief members of the council, followed by the Savior's responses and their condemnation, concluding with the scourging and derogatory treatment inflicted upon Christ Jesus by the officers of the Sanhedrin."},{"author-name":"Abbot Panteleimon about the Trinity","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The Holy Evangelist John, expanding upon the narratives of the initial three Evangelists, recounts that the soldiers along with their commander and the Jewish officers apprehended Jesus, binding Him and leading Him first to Annas. Annas was the former high priest and Caiaphas’s father-in-law, a shrewd and malevolent adversary of the Lord Jesus. He was the first to take delight in witnessing the One who had recently appeared invulnerable to the Sanhedrin now subdued. Annas inquired of Jesus Christ regarding His disciples and His teachings. The Lord refrained from discussing His disciples, holding them in loving regard, but regarding His teachings, He responded to Annas, saying: ‘I have spoken plainly to the whole world; I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where the Jews always gather, and I have not spoken anything in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard what I have said to them.’ This was the Lord’s reply, filled with gentleness, simplicity, clarity, and divine authority. The high priest found no fault in this response, though he was dissatisfied with what he perceived as a clever avoidance of the question. Yet a servant of Annas, a sycophant, viewed the situation differently and immediately struck the Lord on the face, declaring: ‘Is this how You answer the high priest?’ To the insolent man, the Lord calmly replied: ‘If I have spoken wrongly, demonstrate the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike Me?’ This moment stands as a poignant illustration of patience for all followers of the Divine Prisoner. St. Chrysostom urges us to reflect on ‘who said it, to whom it was said, and the purpose behind it,’ for these words can serve as an ongoing and divine reminder to diminish pride. Consider the dignity of the one dishonored, the humility of the offender, the gravity of such disgrace; for not only was the Lord insulted, but He was struck, and striking the palm is an unmatched display of dishonor. Yet He endured it all that you might learn to respond with meekness. Annas observed all of this, but rather than curtail the bold arrogance of his servants, he focused on judging and persecuting the innocent. Realizing he could not ensnare the Lord through questioning, he hastened to Caiaphas with the gathered assembly, sending the Divine Prisoner along. Those who had apprehended Jesus brought Him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders had convened, and where the Sanhedrin awaited the bound Nazarene. It was late at night, a time when the law prohibited the trial of criminal cases, and tradition forbade hearings on the eve of significant feasts like Passover; however, the Sanhedrin disregarded both law and tradition in their eagerness to conclude their plans. In urgent matters, not all seventy-two members of the Sanhedrin were required; twenty-three would suffice, but this time nearly all were present, except for Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. Indeed, it was a lawless assembly, ‘the assembly of the wicked,’ as the Psalmist describes (Psalm 25:5). Meanwhile, two of the Lord’s disciples, Peter and John, out of profound love for Him, followed the Lord to the high priest’s abode."},{"author-name":"Paul Matwejewski","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8969f5be0d592d5a10576_Paul%20Matwejewski.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Annas, opting not to conduct a thorough inquiry into the case of Christ, entrusted the further proceedings to the authority of Caiaphas, the actual high priest, and to the Sanhedrin. It was the middle of the night, and while Jewish customs, which carried the weight of law, dictated that significant cases should not be tried after dark, the adversaries of Christ were eager to expedite the trial due to the imminent feast. Thus, they disregarded this established practice. According to the same custom, a quorum of one-third of the supreme court, meaning at least 23 members, was necessary for a legitimate verdict. Nevertheless, despite the late hour, the court members chose not to exercise this provision, and the entire Sanhedrin, anticipating the apprehension of the despised Prophet from Galilee, gathered in Caiaphas’s chamber. This assembly, indeed the gathering of the wicked, was foretold by the Psalmist (Psalms 25:5) and characterized in church hymns as ‘a lawless assembly and a council of evildoers against God.’ Joseph Caiaphas, who presided over this gathering and was Annas's son-in-law, expertly blended hypocrisy, flattery, and the callousness typical of the Sadducees with prompt decision-making and unscrupulous tactics to achieve his aims. Despite regular interference from Roman governors, who often replaced high priests, Caiaphas retained his position during the nine years of Pontius Pilate's governance (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6) and was only removed from Palestine when proconsul Vitellius took office in 36 C.E. Now, this foremost judge had to render a decision on a case he had already addressed previously during a session of the Sanhedrin that followed the Lord’s resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:50). The task at hand was to lend an outward legal form to the preordained verdict, ensuring a charge of guilt against the Lord could be substantiated."},{"author-name":"Bogolepow D.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"In this segment of Hebrews, two significant occurrences are addressed: the trial of Jesus Christ before the religious leaders and Peter's betrayal. Regarding the first occurrence, the initial two accounts present a specific instance of the trial that took place before the high priest Caiaphas, which they characterize as simultaneously representing the trial of the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57-59; Mark 14:53-55). However, Luke, while agreeing that Jesus was taken to the house of the high priest (54), does not recount the questioning conducted by Caiaphas but rather states that “the men who held Jesus mocked Him and beat Him” (63-65). According to the initial two accounts, this event transpired following the interrogation by Caiaphas (Matthew 26:67-68). Subsequently, Luke notes that when dawn arrived, the Sanhedrin gathered, and the trial of Jesus commenced (to which Matthew 27:1-2 and Mark 15:1 provide only a brief mention). Lastly, John supplements the narratives of the first three writers, stating that the bound Jesus was first taken to Annas and then to Caiaphas. In doing so, he focuses on the trial that occurred at Annas' residence and briefly references the proceedings at Caiaphas’ house. \\n\\nBy synthesizing the accounts from all the writers, we can conclude that the trial of Jesus involved three stages: before Annas, Caiaphas, and the council of the Sanhedrin. The encounter with Annas was merely a preliminary questioning; without delving into extensive details, Annas sought broad information, inquiring about the Lord's disciples and His teaching, as if hoping to discern from the defendant himself what type of criminal he was, the reasons for his trial, and the motives of His so-called secret society."}]}
Support this project and get full access for only 4$/month
Commentarie text can’t be scrolled on PC at the moment. Please use your phone. We’re working on a fix.
