(Verse 24-27) - The trial of our Lord before the council, and the denial of Peter happening at the same time, might be related one before the other, according to the evangelists' pleasure.

Accordingly, Matthew and Mark relate the “trial” first, and Peter's denial afterward; Luke mentions the denial first, and John has probably observed the natural order. The parallel places are recorded in Matthew 26:47-57; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-71; and John 18:13-27.

To Caiaphas-John says that they led him first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. This was done, probably as a mark of respect, he having been high priest, and perhaps distinguished for prudence, and capable of “advising” his son-in-law in a difficult case. Many think that Annas was still the real power in the Temple, though he was no longer the actual High Priest.  This is not certain, however, and there is little Biblical evidence one way or the other. The Savior was “detained” there. probably, until the chief priests and elders were assembled.  Note that this “detention” was illegal and that the assembling of the counsel was illegal itself as Jewish law forbade such things to occur at night.

Several of the parallel passages mention that he was The high priest-Note, Matt. 26:3. John says he was high priest for that year. Annas had been high priest some years before. In the time of our Savior the office was frequently changed by the civil ruler. The Jews had little to say in the matter of who was High Priest, or rather, that the High Priest changed from time to time.  This Caiaphas had prophesied that it was expedient that one should die for the people. See John 11:49-50.

The scribes and elders-The men composing the great council of the nation, or Sanhedrin, Matt. 5:22. It is not probable that they could be immediately assembled, and some part of the transaction respecting the denial of Peter probably took place while they were collecting.  AS we have mentioned, this gathering was illegal, but it is interesting to note that virtually all of the Jewish Leaders took willing part and co-operated.  It is a testimony to how powerfully corrupted the entire leadership was and how truly powerful the hold of the leadership over the nation was.  We like to think that we are independent thinkers, but most are not.  Most people go where they  are led.  It may not be a formal submission, but most people conform to the culture and do as the dictates of that culture demand.  They think and act like the world around them, it is almost inevitable.  

This underscores the tremendous need for godly leadership.  It has a far more dramatic effect on the individual that we at first realize.  That effect can be for the good.  But, it is far more often for the bad.  We have just come through a time in our nation when our national leadership was a bit more corrupt and wicked than is the norm for us.  It is disturbing to look around and see the effect that that leadership had that persists to today.  It will be difficult, if not impossible to correct!

I must take thought in two areas.  First, I must think about the effect that my culture has on me.  I need to recognize that it can be an unconscious effect that can be more influential in my life than I realize.  Second, I need to be mindful of my own affect, as a leader, on others.  I can and do have a dramatic effect on those around me.