Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:24
Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
24. Now Annas had sent him bound ] The received text, following important authorities, has no conjunction. The Sinaitic MS. and some minor authorities insert ‘now’ or ‘but’ ( ). But an overwhelming amount of evidence, including the Vatican MS., gives S. John’s favourite particle, therefore ( ). Moreover the verb is aorist, not pluperfect. Annas therefore sent Him. It is not necessary to enquire whether the aorist may not virtually be pluperfect in meaning. Even if ‘now’ were genuine and the remark were an after-thought which ought to have preceded Joh 18:19, the aorist might still be rendered literally, as in Mat 26:48 (‘ gave them,’ not ‘ had given them a sign’). Comp. Mat 14:3-4.
But ‘therefore’ shews that the remark is not an after-thought. Because the results of the preliminary investigation before Annas were such (there was a prim facie case, but nothing conclusive), ‘Annas therefore sent Him’ for formal trial to Caiaphas, who had apparently been present (see on Joh 18:19) during the previous interrogation and had taken part in it.
bound ] He had been bound by the Roman soldiers and Jewish officials when He was arrested ( Joh 18:12). This was to prevent escape or rescue. During the examination he would be set free as possibly innocent. After the examination He was bound again as presumably guilty, or as before to prevent escape.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Compare Joh 18:13 with Mat 26:57.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 24. Now Annas had sent him, c.] It has been observed before that the proper place of this verse is immediately after the 13th and, if it be allowed to stand here, it should be read in a parenthesis, and considered as a recapitulation of what had been before done.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
These words are only to let us know, that these things were not done before Annas, but before Caiaphas the high priest, to whom (as to his proper judge) Annas had sent him bound, as he was at first brought to him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24-27. Now Annas had sent him boundunto CaiaphasOur translators so render the words,understanding that the foregoing interview took place beforeCaiaphas; Annas, declining to meddle with the case, havingsent Him to Caiaphas at once. But the words here literallyare, “Annas sent Him [not ‘had sent Him’] toCaiaphas”and the “now” being of doubtful authority.Thus read, the verse affords no evidence that He was sent to Caiaphasbefore the interview just recorded, but implies rather thecontrary. We take this interview, then, with some of the ablestinterpreters, to be a preliminary and non-official one with Annas,at an hour of the night when Caiaphas’ Council could not convene; andone that ought not to be confounded with that solemn one recorded bythe other Evangelists, when all were assembled and witnesses called.But the building in which both met with Jesus appears to have beenthe same, the room only being different, and the court, of course, inthat case, one. (Also see on Mr14:54.)
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now Annas had sent him bound,…. As he found him, when the captain, band, and officers brought him to him; who having pleased himself with so agreeable a sight, and had asked him some few questions, and perhaps insulted him, sent him away in this manner,
unto Caiaphas the high priest: his son-in-law, as the more proper person to be examined before; and especially as the grand council was sitting at his house. This was done before Peter’s first denial of Christ; which, it is plain, was in the palace of the high priest, and not in Annas’s house; though there seems no reason on this account to place these words at the end of the 13th verse, as they are by some, since they manifestly refer to time past, and do not at all obscure or hinder the true order of the history, as standing here.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Therefore sent him ( ). First aorist active of , not past perfect (had sent). The preliminary examination by Annas was over.
Bound (). Perfect passive participle of , to bind. Jesus was bound on his arrest (verse 12) and apparently unbound during the preliminary examination by Annas.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Annas had sent [ ] . The best texts insert oun, therefore. The rendering of the aorist by the pluperfect here is inadmissible, and is a device to bring this examination of Jesus into harmony with that described in Mt 26:56 – 68, and to escape the apparent inconsistency between the mention of the high – priest [] as conducting this examination and the statement of ver. 13, which implies that this was merely a preliminary examination before Annas. Render, Annas therefore sent him.
Bound. Probably He had been unbound during His examination.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Now Annas had sent him bound,” (apesteilen oun auton ho Annas dedemenon) “Then Annas had sent him as he had been bound, or in physical restraints,” as if He were a desperate criminal, as bound by the soldiers in Gethsemane, Joh 18:12; He sent Him on still bound.
2) “Unto Caiaphas the high priest.” (pros kaiaphas ton archierea) “Directly to Caiaphas the high priest,” the administrative high priest, that year, Joh 11:49; Joh 18:13. The exact order of shifting Jesus about from Caiaphas to Annas to Herod that night is not always clear, but that it was farcical, a sham night-trial, is evident. But the account of Joh 18:18-19 resumes now, as follows:
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. Now Annas had sent him bound. This sentence must be read by way of parenthesis; for, having said that Christ was taken to the house of Annas, and having continued his narrative, as if the assembly of the priests had been held there, the Evangelist now reminds the reader that Christ was taken from the house of Annas to the high priest’s house. But as the tense of the Greek verb ἀπέστειλε has led many people into a mistake, I have preferred translating it by the pluperfect tense, Had sent. (141)
(141) “ J’ay mieux aime tourner en ceste sorte, Avoit envoye; que, I1 a envoy;“ — “I have chosen to render it in this way, Annas Had Sent, rather than, Annas Sent.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(24) Now Annas had sent him bound. . . .Better, Annas therefore sent Him bound. . . . The reading is uncertain; some MSS. read Therefore; some read Now; some omit the word altogether. On the whole, the evidence is in favour of therefore. The tense is an aorist, and cannot properly have a pluperfect force. The rendering of the Authorised version is based upon the opinion that Jesus had before been sent to Caiaphas, and that all which followed from Joh. 18:13 (see margin there) had taken place after the close of the investigation before Annas. This view is certainly more probable than that the words high priest should be used of Annas and Caiaphas indiscriminately (comp. Note on Joh. 18:15), but both do violence to the ordinary meaning of language, and, if the interpretation which is adopted in these Notes is correct, neither is necessary.
Jesus was still bound; as He had been from Joh. 18:12.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. Annas had sent him The pluperfect had sent, and the parentheses enclosing this verse, are supplied by our translators, to indicate that Jesus was sent by Annas immediately at the close of the 14th verse. Thereby the high priest of Joh 18:19 is Caiaphas, and the examination which follows is before him. But the Greek for had sent is not pluperfect, and there are no good grounds for so rendering it. The plain reading of the Greek declares, that Annas now sent Jesus to Caiaphas at the close of this preliminary examination.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas the High Priest.’
The continued emphasis on the fact that Jesus was bound must be seen as significant. God bound by man. The world was doing what it could to restrain Him, even though He has seemingly submitted Himself to their will. For a while the one whom Jesus has bound (Satan) is himself binding Jesus (Mar 3:27). This is part of His humiliation. But it is only introductory to His greater triumph. He Who will break man’s bonds must Himself first be bound.
We note here confirmation of Jesus’ examination before Caiaphas. But John is aware that details of that examination were well known and adds nothing further.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 18:24. Now Annas had sent him bound, &c. This verse is to be read in a parenthesis, as referring to Joh 18:13.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 18:24 . By the incident Joh 18:22-23 , the conversation of Annas with Jesus was broken off, and the former now sent Him bound (as He was since Joh 18:12 ) to Caiaphas , therefore now for the first time, not already before Joh 18:15 . In order to place the scene of the denials in Caiaphas’ presence, it has been discovered, although John gives not the slightest indication of it, that Annas and Caiaphas inhabited one house with a court in common (Euth. Zigabenus, Casaubon, Ebrard, Lange, Lichtenstein, Riggenbach, Hengstenberg, Godet). In order, also, to assign the hearing of 19 21 to Caiaphas, some have taken critical liberties, and placed Joh 18:24 after Joh 18:14 (so Cyril, who, however, also reads it, consequently, a second time in the present passage, which Beza admits), [215] or have moved it up so as to follow Joh 18:13 (a few unimportant critical witnesses, approved by Rinck); some also have employed exegetical violence. Joh 18:24 , that is, was regarded either as a supplemental historical statement in order to prevent misunderstanding; so Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jansen, and several others, including Lcke, Tholuck, Krabbe, De Wette, Maier, Baeumlein; or the emphasis was laid on , to which word Grotius ascribed a force explanatory of the following denial, but Bengel one explanatory of the previous maltreatment. These exegetic attempts coincide in this, that is understood in a pluperfect sense: miserat , and is regarded as supplying an omission . [216] The aorist, in order to adduce this as a supplemental addition, would rather be: Annas sent Him. But when the Aor . actually stands, making a supplemental statement , the context itself incontestably shows it (the pluperfect usage of the aorist in relative clauses, Khner, II. p. 79; Winer, p. 258 [E. T. p. 343], is not relevant here), as in Mat 14:3-4 (not Mat 16:5 ; Mat 26:48 ; Mat 27:27 , nor Joh 1:24 ; Joh 1:28 ; Joh 6:59 ). Here, however, this is altogether not the case (see rather the progress of the history, Joh 18:13 ; Joh 18:24 ; Joh 18:28 ), and it is only a harmonistic interest which has compelled the interpretation, which is least of all justified in the case of John. John had the pluperfect at command just as much as the aorist, and by the choice of the latter in the sense of the former he would, since the reader has nothing in the context to set him right, have expressed himself so as greatly to mislead, while he would have given, by the whole supplemental observations, the stamp of the greatest clumsiness to his narrative, which had flowed on from Joh 18:15 down to the present point. The expedients of Grotius and Bengel are, however, the more inappropriate, the more manifest it is that simply looks back to Joh 18:12 , . The sole historical sequence that is true to the words is given already by Chrysostom: , , .
[215] Comp. Luther, who, after ver. 14, comments: “Here should stand the 24th verse. It has been misplaced by the copyist in the turning over of the leaf, as frequently happens.”
[216] So also Brandes, Annas u. Pilat , p. 18 f., who adduces many unsuitable passages in proof.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
Ver. 24. Bound to Caiaphas the high priest ] Who should have done our Saviour better justice than to have suffered him, bound and uncondemned, to be injuriously beaten before his face. But the times were then lawless and licentious for the sins of the people. Tales sunt principum mores, quales subditorum humores, ut malo nodo non desit malus cuneus.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24. ] From what has been above said, it will be seen that I cannot acquiesce in the pluperfect rendering of , to bring about which the has apparently been omitted. I believe the verse simply to describe what followed on the preceding: Annas therefore sent Him bound to Caiaphas the High Priest. , , , Chrys. There is no real difficulty in this rendering, if Annas and Caiaphas lived in one palace, or at all events transacted public affairs in one and the same. They would naturally have different apartments, and thus the sending from one to the other would be very possible; as also would the incident related by Luk 22:61 ; see the extract from Robinson, Mat 26:69 , note. “The Evangelist had no need to relate the hearing before Caiaphas, for he has related ch. Joh 11:47 ff.: and we have ere this been familiarized with the habit of our Evangelist not to narrate any further the outward process, where he has already by anticipation substantially given us its result.” Luthardt.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 18:24 . As nothing was to be gained by continuing the examination, Jesus is handed on to Caiaphas, .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Now. In the Received text, there is no word for “Now”, but most of the critical texts insert oun, therefore.
had sent = sent. Greek. apostello. App-174. This shows that this preliminary inquiry was conducted by Annas. John omits the trial before Caiaphas.
unto. Greek. pros. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24.] From what has been above said, it will be seen that I cannot acquiesce in the pluperfect rendering of , to bring about which the has apparently been omitted. I believe the verse simply to describe what followed on the preceding:-Annas therefore sent Him bound to Caiaphas the High Priest. , , , Chrys. There is no real difficulty in this rendering, if Annas and Caiaphas lived in one palace, or at all events transacted public affairs in one and the same. They would naturally have different apartments, and thus the sending from one to the other would be very possible; as also would the incident related by Luk 22:61; see the extract from Robinson, Mat 26:69, note. The Evangelist had no need to relate the hearing before Caiaphas, for he has related ch. Joh 11:47 ff.: and we have ere this been familiarized with the habit of our Evangelist not to narrate any further the outward process, where he has already by anticipation substantially given us its result. Luthardt.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:24. , sent) One or two editions supply , or , or . There is no need of doing so.[384] That Jesus had been led by Annas to Caiaphas, had been indicated by John, in Joh 18:15, by the verb , and by the very appellation High Priest being so often repeated. But now he takes up again this very circumstance, and records it more expressly in conjunction with the mention of His being bound, in which state the Saviour [both ingenuously confessed the truth (Harm., p. 536), and] received a most undeserved blow. Sometimes in a narrative there is put something out of the regular order of time, which is connected with those circumstances that receive light from it: ch. Joh 5:9, Joh 9:14, Joh 11:30; Act 4:22; Jer 29:29, compared with what goes before and what follows. It was in one and the same palace of the High Priest, although in different parts of it, that Peter thrice denied Jesus [This explains the connection with Joh 18:25].-, bound) Joh 18:12.
[384] BLX, C corrected, ab, read the ; and so Lachm.: c and Vulg. et misit. But A omits it: and so Tisch.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:24
Joh 18:24
Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.-This verse tells what had before been implied.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Annas: Annas was dismissed from being high priest, ad 23, after filling that office for fifteen years; but, being a person of distinguished character, and having had no fewer than five sons who had successively enjoyed the dignity of the high-priesthood, and the present high priest Caiaphas being his son-in-law, he must have possessed much authority in the nation. It was at the palace of Caiaphas where the chief priests, elders, and scribes were assembled the whole of the night to see the issue of their stratagem. Joh 18:13, Mat 26:57
bound: Joh 18:13
Reciprocal: Mat 21:39 – caught Mat 26:3 – Caiaphas Mat 27:2 – bound Mar 14:53 – they led Luk 3:2 – Annas Luk 22:54 – took Act 4:6 – Annas Act 23:3 – smitten
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
This is commented upon at verse 13.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:24. Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. The difficulty connected with these words will be best explained when we have completed the consideration of the three following verses. In the meanwhile it is enough to observe that in the original Annas is so introduced to our notice as to lead us directly back to the Annas of Joh 18:13.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 24. Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high- priest.
This verse has always perplexed those who have held that at Joh 18:15 Jesus was led to the house of Caiaphas, and that the session which John has just described is the great session of the Sanhedrim, which is related by the Synoptics. This twofold error is what has occasioned the transposition of this verse in some documents to a place after Joh 18:13 (see the critical note on that verse). It is this likewise which has led some interpreters, such as Calvin, Lucke, Tholuck, de Wette, Langen, to take in the sense of the pluperfect, had sent. But when the aorist has the sense of the pluperfect, the context clearly indicates it. Precisely the contrary is here the case. Besides, the particle , therefore, if it is authentic, excludes this explanation, and it is even probable that this is precisely the reason which has made some reject it and others change it into , now: Now, Annas had sent….
By inserting this notice here, the evangelist simply wished, as by the , first, of Joh 18:13, to reserve a place expressly for the session in the house of Caiaphas, which was indeed otherwise important, and of which he does not give an account. Comp. Joh 18:1 (for the scene in Gethsemane) and Joh 18:5 (for the kiss of Judas). Lutteroth gives to this verse a sentimental cast. There is, according to him, a picture here; John means to say: Behold! This Jesus, thus struck by the officer, was standing there with His hands bound, in the condition in which Annas had [previously] sent Him to Caiaphas! But this sense has nothing in common with the simplicity and sobriety of the apostolic narrative; it implies, moreover, the pluperfect sense as here given to the aorist.
Jesus had undoubtedly been unbound during the examination; after this scene, Annas causes Him to be bound again, in order to send Him to the house of Caiaphas. Probably He was unbound a second time during the session of the Sanhedrim. This explains why in Mat 27:2 and Mar 15:1, He is bound anew at the time of leading Him away to Pilate. To Caiaphas: in the part of the palace where Caiaphas lived, and where were the official apartments and the hall for the meetings of the Sanhedrim. This body had been called together in the interval; for all the members were in Jerusalem for the feast. The title of high-priest reminds us of the wholly official character of the session which was in preparation, as well as that of the place where it occurred.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
CXXVI.
SECOND STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. JESUS CONDEMNED
BY CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIN.
(Palace of Caiaphas. Friday.)
aMATT. XXVI. 57, 59-68; bMARK XIV. 53, 55-65; cLUKE XXII. 54, 63-65; dJOHN XVIII. 24.
d24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. [Foiled in his attempted examination of Jesus, Annas sends him to trial.] band there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. a57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, cand brought him into the high priest’s house. awhere the scribes and the elders were gathered together. [It is very likely that Annas had apartments in the same palace with Caiaphas, and that from these apartments Jesus was led into some hall large enough to hold the Sanhedrin, which was now convened. But this was not its formal session as a court; it was more in the nature of a caucus, or committee of the whole.] b55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought afalse witness against Jesus, bto {athat they might} put him to death; 60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. b56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. aBut afterward came b57 And there stood up certain, atwo, band bare false witness against him, a61 and said, {bsaying,} aThis man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. b58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. 59 And not even so did their witness agree together. [What Jesus [696] had really said will be found at Joh 2:19-22. Though his words were misunderstood at that time, being applied, not to his body, but to Herod’s temple, yet it is not unlikely that the Jewish rulers, hearing our Lord’s prediction that he would rise from the dead after three days ( Mat 27:62, Mat 27:63), came to understand the import of his words. If so, the record itself shows the willingness of the Sanhedrin to receive false witnesses against Christ, for its judges received testimony which they knew to be utterly immaterial if rightly construed. The accounts of the two Evangelists, moreover, show how the witnesses failed to agree. A man could only be condemned on the testimony of two witnesses as to some fact or facts constituting a ground for condemnation– Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15.] a62 And the high priest stood up, bin the midst, and asked Jesus, aand said unto him, {bsaying,} Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? a63 But Jesus held his peace. band answered nothing. [While the testimony then before the court might be used to show that Jesus was recklessly boastful, it was insufficient to justify a sentence of blasphemy. A threat to destroy the temple might be thus construed ( Jer 26:9-11, Act 6:13, Act 6:14); but a promise to rebuild the temple, if destroyed, was altogether different. The high priest, knowing this, sought to extort from Jesus some additional evidence. With great cunning and effrontery he assumes that the testimony is all that could be possibly desired, and demands of Jesus what he has to say in answer to it. But our Lord did not suffer himself to seem so easily deceived. He gave no explanation, since the future would explain his meaning, and speak the real truth to all who had ears to hear it.] aAnd bAgain the high priest asked him, and saith {asaid} unto him, bArt thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? aI adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. [Seeing that Jesus was not to be lured into an answer, and well knowing his perfect frankness, Caiaphas resolved, in his desperation, to question Jesus plainly and [697] bluntly. His question is twofold: 1. Art thou Christ? 2. Art thou the Son of God? The latter of these would constitute blasphemy, and the former, by showing a boastful spirit, would tend to confirm the charge. Perhaps, too, Caiaphas anticipated the future, and foresaw how useful this claim to be the Messiah would prove when a hearing was had before Pilate ( Luk 23:2). Originally the Messiah was recognized as the Son of God ( Psa 2:7), but if the Jews had ever generally entertained such an idea, they had lost it before Jesus’ day, The Messiah might of course be called the Son of God in that secondary sense in which Adam was thus called ( Joh 1:49, Luk 3:38). But Jesus had used the term in an entirely different sense, and his usage had been extremely offensive to the Jews ( Joh 5:17, Joh 5:18, Joh 10:30-39, Mat 22:41-46). Caiaphas evidently wished Jesus to answer this question in that new sense which the Lord had given to the words. Caiaphas had no legal right to ask either of these questions. No man can be compelled to testify against himself, but he knew the claims of Jesus, and realized that if Jesus repudiated them he would be shamed forever, and if he asserted them he could be charged with blasphemy. Taking advantage, therefore, of the situation, Caiaphas put the question with the usual formula of an oath, thus adding moral power to it, for, under ordinary circumstances, one was held guilty if he refused to answer when thus adjured ( Lev 5:1). When their own witnesses failed, these rulers called the “faithful witness”– 1Ti 6:13, Rev 1:5.] b62 And Jesus said, {asaith} unto him, Thou hast said: bI am: and anevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on {bwith} the clouds of heaven. [Jesus freely confessed the truth which his church is called upon to confess. “Right hand of Power” was commonly understood to mean the right hand of God. By the words “nevertheless” and “henceforth” Jesus brings the present state of humiliation into contrast with his future state of glory. Hard as it might be for them to believe it, the day would come when he should [698] sit in judgment and they should stand on trial before him.] 63 And a65 Then the high priest rent his garments, {bclothes,} and saith, {asaying,} He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: 66 what think ye? [Though Jesus had given the very answer which the high priest was longing to hear, yet he hypocritically pretends to be shocked at it, and rends his clothes and feigns horror. Evidently he feared the effect of the clear, calm answer of Jesus and sought to counteract its influence on his colleagues.] They answered and said, He is worthy of death. bAnd they all condemned him to be worthy of death. [This was not the final, formal sentence, but the mere determination of the council at the preliminary hearing.] c63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. b65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, a67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: c64 And they blindfolded him, aand some smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 saying, {band [began] to say unto him,} aProphesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? band the officers received him with blows of their hands. c65 And many other things spake they against him, reviling him. [To spit in the face has been an insult in all ages and in all lands. See Num 12:14, Deu 25:9, Job 30:10. Jesus, having stood out for examination, is now given back to the officers to be led away into the council chamber. These officers received Jesus with many indignities. They seek to make his high claims contemptible, and to make it appear that instead of being divine he is hardly worthy to be regarded as human.] [699]
[FFG 696-699]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 24
Had sent him; previously; for the events related in John 18:15-23 took place at the house of Caiaphas.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Annas could not produce anything for which the Sanhedrin could condemn or even charge Jesus. Therefore he sent Jesus to Caiaphas. The descriptions of Jesus’ hearings in the Gospels alternate between Jesus’ interrogations and Peter’s denials. It seems clear therefore that Annas and Caiaphas lived and interviewed Jesus in different parts of the same large residence or palace. Caiaphas had to interview Jesus to bring charges against Him before the Sanhedrin since Caiaphas was the current official high priest. John noted that Jesus remained bound as a criminal even though He had done nothing to warrant physical restraint.
John did not record what happened when Jesus appeared before Caiaphas and, later, before the Sanhedrin (cf. Mat 26:57-68; Mar 14:53-65; Luk 22:66-71). Perhaps he omitted these aspects of Jesus’ religious trial because the earlier Synoptic Gospels contained adequate accounts of them. Maybe John considered the meeting of the Sanhedrin that he described in 11:47-53 as Jesus’ official condemnation.