Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 4:6

And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

6. and Annas the high priest ] was there. The verb is understood. Annas (called Ananus in Josephus), son of one Seth, was made high-priest (a.d. 7) by the Roman governor Quirinus [Cyrenius], and so continued till a.d. 14 (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2. 1). We do not find that he was ever again appointed to the office, though St Luke here calls him high-priest. But the way in which he is mentioned at the time of the trial of Christ, who was brought, as we read, before Annas first (Joh 18:13), and sent by him afterwards bound unto Caiaphas, shews that, though not actual high-priest, yet his position in the eyes of the people of Jerusalem was one which justified them in bringing Jesus to him as soon as he was seized. It is difficult to explain from the words of the New Test, the relation of these two men in their office. Caiaphas is expressly called high-priest by St John, yet we are not told why Christ was not at once brought to him. It may be that one was acting high-priest, while the other was nasi or president of the Sanhedrin. Moreover it is not improbable that Annas, having been high-priest before, and only deposed from the office by the Roman governor Gratus, would, both during the short high-priesthood of his son Eleazar (a.d. 16), and the longer high-priesthood of Caiaphas, his son-in-law (a.d. 25 37), exercise much influence by reason of his age and experience, and might, from his former tenure of the office, even be spoken of as high-priest. It is clear that he was at the head of one of the most influential Jewish families, for before his death, five of his sons had been high-priests (Joseph. Antiq. xx. 9. 1). We can see from Luk 3:2, where both Annas and Caiaphas are said to be high-priests, that there was some laxity in the common use of the title. So far only does the New Testament carry us, but when we come to examine the Old Testament, and the records of later Jewish literature, there seems every reason to conclude that the expressions which seem somewhat hard to reconcile are exactly those which would naturally be employed. We find that Moses, who is himself counted (Psa 99:6) God’s priest on the same level with Aaron, anointed not Aaron only, but his sons at the same time (Exo 40:12-15) to be high-priests. Also (Num 31:6) Phinehas the son of Eleazar is sent to the war against the Midianites with “the holy instruments” (Le. the Urim and Thummim), which shews that he was high-priest at the same time as Eleazar his father. Again in later times (2Ki 25:18) we have mention made of “Seraiah the chief priest and Zephaniah the second priest,” which the Targum explain as “high-priest and Sagan” or deputy high-priest. The Talmud makes it very clear that there was a special arrangement for providing on some occasions such a deputy for the high-priest. Thus (Mishna Joma i. 1) it says, “Seven days before the day of atonement they remove the high-priest from his house to the chamber of the assessors, and they provide another priest in his place lest any disqualification should befal him.” On this passage Rashi’s note is “ to be high-priest instead of him.” and a little later on in the same treatise (T. B. Joma 39 a) it is said concerning the services of the day of atonement: “Rabbi Khanina the Sagan of the priests (and so one qualified to speak on the duties of the office) said: Why does the Sagan stand on the right hand of the high-priest (when the lots are being cast for the goats)?” The answer is, “So that if any disqualification should befal him, the Sagan may go in (to the Holy of Holies) and perform the service in his stead.” Cp. also Midrash Rabbah on Leviticus (par. 20 ad fin.). “If there was any defilement on Aaron, Eleazar served (as high-priest), and if there was any defilement on Eleazar, Ithamar served.” (On the slight matters which caused such ceremonial defilement, see note on Act 10:28.) And in the same chapter we find “Had not Elisheba (Exo 6:23, the wife of Aaron) joy in this world who saw five crowns (i.e. subjects for rejoicing) in one day? her brother-in-law (Moses) a king (Deu 33:5); her brother (Naashon) nasi, i.e. president, of the tribe of Judah; her husband high-priest; her two sons, sagans of the high-priest; and Phinehas her grandson anointed for the war.” These notices make it clear that from the earliest times down to a period posterior to the date of the Acts, there were occasions, and these not unfrequent, when two men were called high-priests at the same time.

That one who had been high-priest should still retain the title may be seen from the principle laid down in several places in the Talmud, (see Mishna Shekalim vi. 6, ed. princ. Jerus.), viz. that “you may elevate in a sacred office or service, but you cannot bring down,” as with us “once a Bishop, always a Bishop.” The illustration given is that you might lay the shewbread on a marble table first, and afterwards on a golden one, but the contrary order of proceeding was forbidden. (For another illustration, see note on Act 6:3.) Therefore Annas, having been high-priest, could, according to Jewish usage, never be called by any lower title.

The relationship between Annas and Caiaphas and the seniority of the former is enough to explain the conduct of the crowd in bringing Jesus to him first: while the omission of the word high-priest (Act 4:6) with the name of Caiaphas is no more a proof that he was not also known to be high-priest, as well as Annas, than the words of St Mark’s Gospel (Act 16:7), “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter,” can be made evidence that Peter was not one of the disciples. For a similar phrase cp. Act 5:29 and the note there.

and Caiaphas ] He was also called Joseph, and was son-in-law to Annas.

and John ] This is the same name as Johanan, and Lightfoot concludes that this person was the famous Johanan ben Zaccai, who by his influence with Vespasian procured permission for many of the Jews to settle in Jamnia (Yavneh) after the destruction of their city, and himself became head of the synagogue there.

and Alexander ] of whom nothing is known more than can be gathered from this mention of him.

and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest ] And these would probably all be of the Sadducees’ party.

were gathered together at (MSS. in) Jerusalem ] These words which A. V. places at the end of Act 4:6 are in the Greek a part of Act 4:5, and it is better to insert them there, because the MSS. of most authority make the names in Act 4:6 all nominatives and subjects to a new verb. It may have been that some of the authorities were not residents in Jerusalem, but had to be summoned.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 6. Annas] Though this man was not now actually in the office of high priest, yet he had possessed it for eleven years, bore the title all his life, and had the honour of seeing five of his sons fill that eminent place after him-an honour that never happened to any other person from the commencement of the Mosaic institution. He is the same who is called Ananus by Josephus, Ant. b. xx. c. 8.

And Caiaphas] He was son-in-law to Annas, Joh 18:13, was now high priest, and the same who, a short time before, condemned Christ to be crucified.

And John] Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, with great probability that this was Jochanan ben Zaccai, who was very famous at that time in the Jewish nation. Of him it is said in the Talmud, Jucas. fol. 60: “Rabbin Jochanan ben Zaccai the priest lived 120 years. He found favour in the eyes of Caesar, from whom he obtained Jafneh. When he died, the glory of wisdom ceased.” The following is a remarkable passage: Yoma, fol. 39: Forty years before the destruction of the city, (the very time of which St. Luke now treats,) when the gates of the temple flew open of their own accord, Rab. Jochanan ben Zaccai said, “O temple! temple! why dost thou disturb thyself? I know thy end, that thou shalt be destroyed, for so the Prophet Zachary hath spoken concerning thee: open thy doors, O Lebanon! that the fire may devour thy cedars.” See Lightfoot and Schoettgen.

And Alexander] This was probably Alexander Lysimachus, one of the richest Jews of his time, who made great presents to the temple, and was highly esteemed by King Agrippa. See Calmet. He was brother to the famous Philo Judaeus, and father of Alexander Tiberius, who married Berenice, the daughter of Agrippa the elder, and was governor of Judea after Cuspius Fadus. See Josephus, Ant. l. xix. c. 5, s. 1.

Of the kindred of the high priest] Or rather, as Bp. Pearce renders it, “of the race of the high priests, i.e. of the family out of which the high priests were chosen.” It may, however, comprehend those who belonged to the families of Annas and Caiaphas, and all who were connected with the sacerdotal family. Luke distinctly mentions all these, to show how formidable the enemies were against whom the infant Church of Christ had to contend.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas; both these are said to be high priests, Luk 3:2; whether they bare this office by turn each other year, as some think, or that the Roman power put in and out whom they pleased, and in courtesy he that was laid aside still retained the title during his life, is not very material.

John, thought to be the son of Annas.

Alexander, a man of great repute amongst them, as Josephus says.

As many as were of the kindred of the high priest; their relation many times preferring them to a place in their great council, or sanhedrim.

Were gathered together at Jerusalem; or in Jerusalem; either such as were in the city, being called together on such an extraordinary occasion; or else they sent also unto men of greatest note, that lived nigh thereunto.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

6. Annas . . . and Caiaphas(Seeon Lu 3:2).

John and Alexanderofwhom nothing is known.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And Annas the high priest,…. So called, either because he had been an high priest, though he was not now, but Caiaphas his son-in-law; or because he was the Sagan of the high priest, and had all the other priests under his government; and is mentioned first, because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas; [See comments on Lu 3:2] he could not be called so, because he was , “prince”, or president of the council; for not he, but Gamaliel, was president at this time. And

Caiaphas; who was properly high priest, and continued so for three years after the death of Christ:

and John; who is thought by Dr. Lightfoot to be the same with Jochanan, or John ben Zaccai; a famous Jewish Rabbi, who lived at this time, and until, and after the destruction of Jerusalem: this Rabbi was , “a priest” t, as this John was, of the kindred of the high priest; he lived also at Jerusalem; for it is said of him u, that he sat in the shadow of the temple, and expounded all the whole day; and a very remarkable story is told of him, which happened just about this time w; which is, that

“forty years before the destruction of the temple–the doors of the temple opened of themselves, when Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai reproved them, saying, O temple, temple, wherefore dost thou fright thyself? I know thee, that thine end shall be, to be destroyed; for so prophesied of thee Zechariah, the son of Iddo, Zec 11:1. “Open thy doors, O Lebanon”, c.”

The chief objection to him, as that learned writer observes, is, that he lived and died a Pharisee, whereas this John seems to have been a Sadducee see Ac 5:17. This puts me in mind of John the high priest, who ministered in the high priesthood fourscore years, and at last became a Sadducee x: Beza’s ancient copy reads “Jonathan: and Alexander”; whose surname was Lysimachus, and had the title of “Alabarcha”; he was a very rich man y: after Alexander the great had been at Jerusalem, this name became frequent among the Jews; and it is said z to be promised him, and was fulfilled, that every son that was born to the priests that year he entered Jerusalem, should be called Alexander; and therefore it is no wonder to hear of an Alexander among the kindred of the high priest; frequent mention is made of , “Rabbi Alexander”, in the Jewish writings a:

and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest; by whose means they were become members of the sanhedrim:

were gathered together at Jerusalem; where the great council only sat, until the destruction of it; it seems by this, that some of the members of it lived in the country; it may be in some of the villages adjacent, where they might be easily and quickly sent for, upon any occasion, as they very likely now were; the Syriac version leaves out the words “at Jerusalem”.

t Juchasin, fol. 20. 2. u T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 26. 1. w T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 39. 2. & Hieros. Yoma, fol. 43. 3. x T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 29. 1. y Joseph Antiqu. l. 20. c. 4. sect. 2. z Juchasin, fol. 14. 1. & 159. 1. Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 18. 2. a T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 53. 2. Chagiga, fol. 5. 1. Megilla, fol. 17. 2. Nedarim, fol. 41. 1. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 1. & passim.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Annas (H). One of the rulers or chief priests, ex-high priest (A.D. 7-14) and father-in-law of

Caiaphas () who was actual high priest at that time, though the title clung to Annas as here (both so called in Lu 3:2), Caiaphas so by Roman law, Annas so in the opinion of the Jews. They with John and Alexander are the leaders among the Sadducees in pressing the case against Peter and John.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “And Annas the high priest,” (kai Annas ho archiereus) “And Annas the high, chief, or ruling priest,” the father-in-law of Caiphas who was the active presiding High Priest, Joh 1:8; Joh 13:14; Luk 3:2.

2) “And Caiphas, and John, and Alexander,” (kai Kaaphas kai loannes kai Aleksandros) “And Caiphas, John, and Alexander; This John was perhaps the son of Annas the high priest; and Alexander is thought to be the brother of Philo, the famous Jewish historian, a man of substantial wealth, Antiquities of Josephus 18:8; Mat 26:3; Joh 11:49; Joh 18:14; Joh 18:28-32.

3) “And as many as were of the kindred of the high priest,” (kai hosoi esan ek genous archieratikou) “And as many as were of the family-race (kindred) of the high priest.

4) “Were gathered together at Jerusalem,” (sunachthenai en lerousalem) “Were assembled in Jerusalem,” for this special trial, the indictment and condemnation of Peter and John and the church that was assembling with them.

Those who came “to be assembled” in Jerusalem that day were not of his blood-relations only, but also those of the pontifical race, rulers in Israel; They had come for the “hides” of Peter and John especially, Act 4:3, Jesus had assured that such times should come to His witnesses, yet not without blessings, Mat 5:11-12; Joh 15:20-21; Gal 6:9.

They came together, flocked together for council or collusion regarding the healing of the lame man and the subsequent preaching of Peter in Solomon’s Porch. This doctrine of resurrection, Holy Spirit gifts, the existence of angels, and testimony of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus sorely vexed the Sadducees and Sanhedrin for it identified them as enemies against God, ignorant, and living off of tithes of the people of God, while rejecting his manifestation of himself in Jesus Christ, Joh 1:11-12; Rom 10:1-4; Eph 4:18; 2Co 4:3-4.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(6) And Annas the high priest . . .These are mentioned by themselves as representing the section that had probably convened the meeting, and came in as if to dominate its proceedings. The order of the first two names is the same as in Luk. 3:2, and as that implied in Joh. 18:13; Joh. 18:24. Annas, or Ananus, had been made high priest by Quirinus, the Governor of Syria, filled the office A.D. 7-15, and lived to see five of his sons occupy it after him. At this time, Joseph Caiaphas was the actual high priest (see Note on Joh. 11:49), having been appointed in A.D. 17. He was deposed A.D. 37. He had married the daughter of Annas; and the latter seems to have exercised a dominant influence, perhaps, as the Nasi, the Prince, or President, of the Sanhedrin, during the remainder of his life. If he presided on this occasion, it may explain St. Lukes calling him the high priest.

John.This may have been the Johanan ben Zaccai, who is reported by Jewish writers to have been at the height of his fame forty years before the destruction of the Temple, and to have been President of the Great Synagogue after its removal to Jamnia. The identification is, at the best, uncertain; but the story told of his death-bed, in itself full of pathos, becomes, on this assumption, singularly interesting. His disciples asked him why he wept: O light or Israel, . . . . whence these tears? And he replied: If I were going to appear before a king of flesh and blood, he is one who to-day is and to-morrow is in the grave; if he were wroth with me, his wrath is not eternal; if he were to cast me into chains, those chains are not for ever; if he slay me, that death is not eternal; I might soothe him with words or appease him with a gift. But they are about to bring me before the King of kings, the Lord, the Holy and Blessed One, who liveth and abideth for ever. And if He is wroth with me, His wrath is eternal; and if He bind, His bonds are eternal; if He slay, it is eternal death; and Him I cannot soothe with words or appease with gifts. And besides all this, there are before me two paths, one to Paradise and the other to Gehenna, and I know not in which they are about to lead me. How can I do aught else but weep? (Bab-Beracoth, fol. 28, in Lightfoot: Cent.-Chorogr., Acts 15)

Alexander.This name has been identified by many scholars with Alexander, the brother of Philo, the Alabarch, or magistrate of Alexandria (Jos. Ant. xviii. 8, 1; xix. 5, 1). There is, however, not the shadow of any evidence for the identification.

As many as were of the kindred of the high priest.The same phrase is used by Josephus (Ant. xv. 3, 1), and may mean either those who were personally related by ties of blood with the high priest for the time being, or the heads of the four-and-twenty courses of priests. (See Notes on Mat. 2:4; Luk. 1:5.) All these had probably taken part in our Lords condemnation.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

6. Annas The same court, the same judges, are to be faced who arraigned their Divine Master some sixty days ago. (See notes on Joh 18:13; Joh 18:19.)

Caiaphas See notes on Mat 26:3; Joh 11:49.

John, and Alexander However important these two characters were in their day, (and Luke intimates by mentioning them that they were weighty personages,) no other certain trace of them exists in any history besides this verse. They are indebted to their participation in the trial of these two humble apostles for all the sure record they have left on earth. Only some have conjectured that the first was Johanan Ben Tachai, famous in Jewish tradition; and others that Alexander was brother to Philo the Jew. (See notes on Luk 1:5; Joh 1:1.) But these were very ordinary names among the Jews; the former for its Old Testament odour and its propitious meaning, God favours; and the latter in honour of Alexander the Great, who was so gratefully remembered by the Jews for his kingly favour that they called all children of priestly rank born on the anniversary of his visit to Jerusalem by his name.

Kindred of the high priest Meaning probably the relatives of Annas and Caiaphas in the Sanhedrin.

Gathered Jerusalem Coming in, perhaps, from their country homes to attend this session.

What gave this case such importance as to bring the highest dignitaries of the nation to the capital? They had a very grave case before them. A decisive miracle, attested and accredited by hundreds, had been performed within the very courts of the temple before the assembled crowds of worshipping Israel, and that in the name of the One claiming to be Messiah, whom their own high court, with these same high priests at its head, had sentenced to death. The question now to be decided is, Are these men prophets of Jehovah, or seducers to idolatry? Deu 13:1-5.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Act 4:6. And Annas the high-priest, and Caiaphas, See the note on Luk 3:2. John and Alexander were evidently persons of great note among the Jews at this time; and it is not improbable, as Dr. Lightfoot and others suppose, that the former might be the celebrated Rabbin Jochanan Ben Zaccai, mentioned in the Talmud, the scholar of Hillel; and that the latter might be the Alabarch, or governor of the Jews at Alexandria, brother to the famous Philo-Judaeus, and in great favour with Claudius Caesar. Josephus mentions him often, and tells us among other things, that he adorned nine gates of the temple with plates of gold and silver. Of the kindred of the high-priest, is read by some, Of the pontifical family. Dr. Hammond explains this of the twenty-four members of the Aaronic family, who presided over the twenty-four courses; others refer it to those who were nearly related to Annas and Caiaphas; but Grotius thinks that it includes the kindred of those who hadlately been in the office of high-priest, which, he says, made them members of the Sanhedrim. These were the very persons who had procured the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore theythought themselves highly concerned to suppress his disciples and their doctrine.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

Ver. 6. And Annas ] The same old man, still no changeling, , as it was said of Helena.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

6 .] On Annas and Caiaphas, both called high priests, Luk 3:2 , see note there. Of John and Alexander nothing is known. Lightfoot supposes John to be identical with the Jochanan ben Zacchai of the Talmud, who however (De W.) was not of the high -priestly, but only of the priestly race: and Pearson, Wolf, Krebs, and Mangey suppose Alexander to have been the brother of Philo Judus, mentioned by Jos. Antt. xviii. 8. 1. But this is very improbable; for he was Alabarch of the Jews at Alexandria, Jos. ibid.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 4:6 . : Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was the high priest actually, in office, but like other retired high priests, the latter retained not only the title, but also many of the rights and obligations of the office. Josephus certainly appears to extend the title to ex-high priests, and so in the N.T. where appear at the head of the Sanhedrim as in this passage ( ), the ex-high priests are to be understood, first and foremost, as well as the high-priest actually in office. The difficulty here is that the title is given to Annas alone, and this seems to involve that he was also regarded as president of the Sadducees, whereas it is always the actual who presides, cf. Act 5:17 ; Act 7:1 ; Act 9:1 ; Act 22:5 ; Act 23:2 ; Act 23:4 ; Act 24:1 . But not only is the laxity of the term to be considered, but also the fact that Annas on account of his influence as the head of the may have remained the presiding in spite of all the rapid changes in the tenure of the high-priestly office under the Romans. These changes the Jews would not recognise as valid, and if the early chapters of Acts came to St. Luke as seems probable from Jewish Christian sources, Annas might easily be spoken of as high-priest. His relationship to Caiaphas helps to explain the influence and power of Annas. On Hamburger’s view ( Real-Encyclopdie des Judentums , ii., 8, p. 1151,“Synhedrion”), that a Rabbi and not the high-priest presided over the Sadducees, see Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation , p. 522, and Schrer, u. s. , p. 180. For Annas, see Jos., Ant. , xviii., 2, 12, xx., 9, 1, and see further “Annas” in B.D. 2 and Hastings’ B.D. : identified by J. Lightfoot ( cf. also Wetstein) with the famous Johanan ben Zacchai, president of the Great Synagogue after its removal to Jamnia, who obtained leave from Vespasian for many of the Jews to settle in the place. But the identification is very uncertain, and does not appear to commend itself to Schrer; see critical note above. : of him too nothing is known, as there is no confirmatory evidence to identify him with the brother of Philo, alabarch of Alexandria, and the first man of his time amongst the Jews of that city, Jos., Ant. , xviii., 8, 1, xix., 5, 1, xx., 5, B.D. 2 and Hastings’ B. D., “Alexander”.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Annas. See note on Luk 3:2.

Caiaphas. See note on Joh 11:49-53; Joh 18:13.

John. Nothing certainly known of him. Dr. John Lightfoot supposes he was Johanan Ben Lacoai, a famous Rabbi of that time. Works, viii. p. 392.

of. Greek. ek. App-104.

kindred = race. Greek. genos. Not the same word as in Act 3:25.

kindred of the high priest = high-priestly race. Greek. archieratikos. Only here.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

6.] On Annas and Caiaphas, both called high priests, Luk 3:2,-see note there. Of John and Alexander nothing is known. Lightfoot supposes John to be identical with the Jochanan ben Zacchai of the Talmud, who however (De W.) was not of the high-priestly, but only of the priestly race:-and Pearson, Wolf, Krebs, and Mangey suppose Alexander to have been the brother of Philo Judus, mentioned by Jos. Antt. xviii. 8. 1. But this is very improbable; for he was Alabarch of the Jews at Alexandria, Jos. ibid.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 4:6. , the High Priest, the chief of the priests) This is to be understood of Caiaphas also.-, Alexander) This name was frequent among the Jews from Alexander the Great.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Annas: Luk 3:2, Joh 11:49, Joh 18:13, Joh 18:14, Joh 18:24

Reciprocal: 1Ch 24:5 – the governors Psa 56:6 – gather Jer 19:1 – the ancients of the people Jer 38:1 – heard Mat 10:17 – for Mat 26:3 – Caiaphas Mar 14:53 – and with Mar 15:1 – straightway Joh 11:47 – gathered Act 4:1 – the priests Act 5:17 – all Act 5:21 – But

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Act 4:6. And Annas the high priest. The Rabbis maintain that the Sanhedrim existed in the time of Moses, and refer to the incidents related in Numbers 11 for its origin. Seventy elders were appointed in the wilderness to assist Moses in his task of judging the people. Tradition relates how this council continued in power until the captivity. It was remodelled by Ezra on the return. Its name, however, derived as it is from the Greek, points to a far later dateto some period in their history after the Law came in contact with Greek thought and language.

The place of assembly for the Sanhedrim was a chamber in the temple, situated between the court of the Israelites and the court of the priests, and was called Gazith. Some forty years before the fall of the city, this sacred council ceased to sit in any of the courts of the temple, and removed to a building without the temple precincts. After the fall of the city, the Sanhedrim was allowed by the victorious Roman Government to hold its sittings at Japhneh. It was subsequently permanently removed to Tiberias. Some have supposed that when the power of life and death was taken from the Sanhedrists, they ceased to sit in the hall Gazith. The Sanhedrim was the supreme court in the Jewish nation. Its decrees apparently were respected beyond Palestine, for we read how Saul was provided with credentials from the Sanhedrim to the Jewish synagogues of Damascus, when he went to search out and imprison the Syrian followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Its powers embraced all matters, civil as well as religious. It tried accused persons, and its decisions admitted of no appeal. In the New Testament, the trials before the Sanhedrim of the Lord Jesus, Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul are related. Besides its criminal jurisdiction, this court was the supreme arbiter in all matters connected with religion.

The actual high priest at this time was Caiaphas; but Annas, his father-in-law, originally held this great dignity. The Idumean rulers, and after them the Roman Government, not un-frequently would arbitrarily depose the high priest, and could set up another in his room. But with the people the deposed functionary kept his title, and even still wore the high-priestly garments (see Bleek, who has a good note on this point in Mat 2:4). In our Lords trial the accused was taken to Annas first (see also

Luk 3:2), where Caiaphas is mentioned as high priest, but after Annas. He was perhaps the most influential person among the Jews at this time. Raised to the high-priestly dignity by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria, then deposed by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea, early in the reign of Tiberius, he still continued to exercise the chief power during the priesthood of his son-in-law Caiaphasa period of twelve years. Five of his sons were advanced to this high office during his lifetime.

And Caiaphas. He was nominally high priest, his father-in-law, Annas, exercising the real power from A.D. 24 to A.D. 36, and was deposed at the beginning of the reign of Caligula by Vitellius, then governer of Syria.

And John and Alexander. Nothing positively certain is known of these two. Lightfoot would identify John with Rabbi Johanan ben Zaccai, who is mentioned in the Talmud: after the fall of Jerusalem, he obtained permission from the Roman Government that the Sanhedrim might be settled at Japhneh. Alexander some consider identical with the brother of Philo the historian, and well known as alabarch or governor of the Egyptian Jews.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

See notes on verse 5

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 6

Annas. He had been high priest, and still retained the title. Caiaphas was his son-in-law, and was then high priest.–John and Alexander; influential members of the Sanhedrim.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the {d} kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

(d) From whom the high Priests were usually chosen and made. At this time the former high Priest was stepping down, and a new high Priest was being appointed.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Annas, whom Luke called the high priest here (Act 4:6), was technically not the high priest at this time. He had served as high priest from A.D. 6 to 15, but since A.D. 18 his son-in-law Caiaphas had been the high priest. However, Annas continued to exert great influence (cf. Luk 3:2; Joh 18:13-24). He was so powerful that Luke could refer to him as the high priest even though he was only the power behind the office (cf. Luk 3:2; Joh 18:13; Act 7:1). During this time former high priests seem to have kept their titles and membership in the Sanhedrin. [Note: Jeremias, p. 157.] At this time in Israel’s history, the Roman governor of Palestine appointed the high priest. "John" may refer to Jonathan, a son of Annas who succeeded Caiaphas as high priest in A.D. 36. Luke did not mention Alexander elsewhere, and he is presently unknown.

The High Priests of Israel (ca. A.D. 6-66)

Annas (ca. A.D. 6-15): the co-high priest with Caiaphas during Jesus’ trial (Luk 3:2; Joh 18:13; Joh 18:24), and the high priest who, with Caiaphas, tried Peter and John (Act 4:6)

Eleazar (ca. A.D. 16-17): the son of Annas

Caiaphas (ca. A.D. 18-36): the son-in-law of Annas, the high priest during Jesus’ earthly ministry (Luk 3:2; Mat 26:3; Mat 26:57; Joh 11:49-50), and the high priest who with Annas tried Peter and John (Act 4:6)

Jonathan (ca. A.D. 36-37): the son of Annas, and possibly the "John" of Act 4:6

Theophilus (ca. A.D. 37-41): the son of Annas

Matthias (ca. A.D. 42): the son of Annas

Ananias (ca. A.D. 47-59): tried Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea (Act 23:1-10; Act 24:1-23)

Annas (ca. A.D. 61): the son of Annas

Matthias (ca. A.D. 65-66): the son of Theophilus, grandson of Annas

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)