Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane. Although Judas came to identify him in the dark and facilitate the arrest, Jesus stepped forward, identified himself and insisted that only he be arrested. There were Roman guards and the High Priests soldiers to take him; so there was already collusion between the two authorities. It would be argued to the Romans, based in the Antonia fortress at the north end of the Temple building, and close to Gethsemane, that Jesus would cause disruption at the enormous Passover Festival. That he came quietly would slightly confuse them. Jesus hands were bound, as was normal in an arrest, but normally great Rabbis would not be treated like this. Only the dark made it acceptable. Jesus would be taken down into the Kidron Valley and round the South east corner of the city wall into the lower city. The Roman guards after the arrest probably went back to the barracks, because they would not be allowed in the house of the High Priest, Annas. It was deep into the night and there would be few people about. Jesus head might be covered to prevent him being identified, for this was a massively contentious arrest of the most awesome Teacher of the era.
So, at this stage, the arrest was mainly under the direction of Annas, the High Priest, or more accurately Annas the father-in-law of the High Priest, Caiaphas. Annas was High Priest from 15-20AD and was followed by five of his sons in the job before Caiaphas. So, this was an elite family show and really Annas was in charge, and Annas wanted to establish control of the whole process. When arrested Jesus should have been publicly tried when a charge was brought against him. If it involved the death penalty, the case had also to be referred to the Roman authority Pilate. Trials were conducted by local small Sanhedrin, with 23 judges, or by the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem of 71 members meeting in the Hall of Hewn Stones on the edge of the Temple Complex. But this was not a proper trial. Jesus’ arrest at night, so as not to attract the attention of the vast crowds in Jerusalem was deliberately clandestine, and he was taken to the House of Annas.
This was like all political moves to take out political opponents who are a threat. This week in Russia Putin had imprisoned his main political opponent, and, it seems, tried to poison him. Politicians have long eradicated their threats, and Jesus was a threat. Twice he had overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, exposing the veniality of the system. Annas was piling up money in the Temple Treasury, using God for money. Jesus was bringing the issue out, had just exposed him this week. “It is written, ‘My house will be a house of prayer’, but you have made it a den of robbers.” The crowds were repeating it. Of course similar things were going on in religious shrines around the world. At Delphi the oracle was used as a money spinning system. Priests relied on cashing in on religion. Superstition made money. Later on, it would be indulgences. But Jesus stood against all this. You do not make money from God because God is the Father of all and it does not matter where you worship as long as you worship in spirit and truth.
We need a short detour on to Peter and John. Once the focus was on the arrested Christ, it would have been relatively easy for some of the disciples to follow at a distance to see what would happen to Jesus, and Peter we know would do that. Did John go with him, and is John the disciple who gained access to Annas’ House? There is something we do not know about John. The weight of the Synoptic Gospels is set in Galilee and the weight of John’s Gospel is set in Jerusalem. What is it with John and Jerusalem? I suspect the answer is Nichodemus. John 3 does not appear there by mistake, but because John knew this private conversation directly from Nichodemus, and Nichodemus was on the Great Sanhedrin. We are not told, but he could have been one of the shadowy figures in this gathering, letting John in and later helping Peter to gain access. The appearance in front of Annas was not the “trial”. That would occur with Caiaphas. It was Annas sizing up how Jesus could be handled and softening him up for the later appearance before Caiaphas. The interchange is interesting.
We hear that Annas questions Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Why? Perhaps he was worried that the disciples would spread the word among the crowds and there would be a riot and trouble. Annas would be managing everything. His focus in discussing the teaching of Jesus would be to see if Jesus could be seen as claiming to be God and thus guilty in their eyes of blasphemy. How could that accusation be made to stick? We know where Annas was fishing, because that is where the “trial” later went. Jesus response to Annas is in terms of the public integrity of the trial process. “I have spoken openly to the world” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogue or at the Temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” Jesus is not subversive. The charges will be false. Let’s be open about this. Yet, the statement is three things. It is an insistence on the process of public trial with witnesses and not extracting from bound or tortured prisoners – confessions which are not true or fabricated. It is an insistence on public trial, witnesses who can be questioned, evidence and specific charges. Actually, this event lies behind what happens normally in courtrooms around the world. Innocent until proven guilty is obviously right because Christ was innocent. But second, it is also a principle of public openness. Jesus had taught that what is done in the secret places will be shouted from the housetops.
This is a world-wide principle. I’m convinced Nichodemus was there, allowing John into the big posh house of Annas, and then Peter with a nod to the gatekeeper. He had the Sanhedrin status. Nichodemus knew Jesus’ words to him inside out. “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 3:19-21) When Jesus makes this statement about being judged in public, Nichodemus can see this principle in action before his eyes. On the one hand the arrest at night, the pseudo trial before Annas to set up the murder of Jesus because of the evil money-making system of Annas and the Temple Party. The truth in the light and evil in darkness. Nichodemus can see Christ’s walk in the light – open teaching, cleansing the Temple, facing down the evil. So it has ever been. The Nazi Secret service, Stalin, Nixon and Watergate – everywhere evil tries to hide, stay underground, avoid the light. All of us seek sometimes to have the dark place in our lives where evil can hide, and here Jesus insists it must be in the open, in the light, and that remains the truth under which we live throughout human history.
But, immediately, Jesus is defeated. He is rude to Annas. Annas is asking him questions and as Chief Priest of the Chief Priests should be answered. Jesus does not give a fig for power or status and responds, if you want answers to these questions, then ask the witnesses. There were plenty about. I’m ending the conversation here. Similarly, later, he would refuse to talk with Herod Antipas, though his life depended on it. Herod had murdered John the Baptist and you do not dress up a charade as a valid trial. They mocked him. He said nothing. But Annas was furious. The answer insulted him. “Why question me?” It is one of his officials who strikes Jesus across the face, but Annas’s fury is in the hand.
Christians are sometimes too nice. The curate’s bad egg is “good in parts”. Jesus does not bend. “Is this the way you answer the High Priest?” the official rasps out. “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why do you strike me?” Of course, Jesus had not “said” anything. He has refused to say anything and has stayed with the principles of trial and openness. He has also already faced death from these people and knows it is coming. Here the trial is wrong. The powers that be are corrupt. Addressing the whole business of human politics and its corruption is underway, and Annas sent Jesus, still bound, to Caiaphas, the high Priest and his Son-in-Law for the proper pseudo trial. The houses were probably quite close in the Upper City. And so, our politics must be in the light, following Jesus. Come on. Let’s bring it all out.