Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:13

And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

13. to Annas first ] Whether Annas was ‘chief’ of the priests (2Ki 25:18), or president, or vice-president, of the Sanhedrin, we have no information. Certainly he was one of the most influential members of the hierarchy, as is shewn by his securing the high-priesthood for no less than five of his sons as well as for his son-in-law Caiaphas, after he had been deposed himself. He held office a.d. 7 14, his son Eleazar a.d. 16, Joseph Caiaphas a.d. 18 36; after him four sons of Annas held the office, the last of whom, another Annas (a.d. 62), put to death S. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem. The high-priests at this time were often mere nominees of the civil power, and were changed with a rapidity which must have scandalised serious Jews. There were probably five or six deposed high-priests in the Sanhedrin which tried our Lord (see on Luk 3:2). Other forms of the name Annas are Ananias, Ananus, and Hanan.

for he was father-in-law ] And therefore Caiaphas would be sure to respect the results of a preliminary examination conducted by him. Possibly the chief priests thought that Annas was a safer man than Caiaphas, and the father-in-law having taken the lead which they wanted the high-priest would be compelled to follow. This examination before Annas is given us by S. John only, who tacitly corrects the impression that the examination before Caiaphas was the only one.

that same year ] Omit ‘same’ and see on Joh 11:49. Comp. Joh 20:19 and Mar 4:35, where ‘same’ is improperly inserted, as here.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

To Annas first – Probably his house was nearest to them, and he had great authority and influence in the Jewish nation. He had been himself a long time high priest; he had had five sons who had successively enjoyed the office of high priest, and that office was now filled by his son-in-law. It was of importance, therefore, to obtain his sanction and counsel in their work of evil.

That same year – Joh 11:49.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 13. To Annas] This man must have had great authority in his nation:

1. Because he had been a long time high priest;

2. Because he had no less than five sons who successively enjoyed the dignity of the high priesthood; and,

3. Because his son-in-law Caiaphas was at this time in possession of that office. It is likely that Annas was chief of the Sanhedrin, and that it was to him in that office that Christ was first brought. Some think that Annas was still high priest, and that Caiaphas was only his deputy, though he did the principal part of the business, and that it as because of this that he is called high priest. But see the notes on Mt 2:4, and Lu 3:2.

That same year.] The office was now no longer during life as formerly. See Clarke on Joh 11:49.

What is related in the 24th verse, Joh 18:24, Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas, comes properly in after the 13th verse. Joh 18:13 One of the Vienna MSS. adds this verse here; the later Syriac has it in the margin, and St. Cyril in the text. See the margin.

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

That his son in law Caiaphas was the high priest that year; which we had also before, Joh 11:51, where we discoursed more largely about the disorder of the Jews, in that most corrupt time, when that place was bestowed without regard to the family of Aaron, and bought and sold, or conferred at the will of their conquerors. See Poole on “Joh 11:51“.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

13, 14. And led him away to Annasfirst(See on Lu 3:2, and Mt26:57). (Also see on Mr 14:53.)

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

And led him away to Annas first,…. Who is elsewhere mentioned with Caiaphas as an high priest also, Lu 3:2. He was the “sagan” of the high priest; he and Caiaphas seem to have had the high priesthood alternately; and either now, because his house lay first in the way, or rather, because he was a man of age, learning, and experience, as these men usually were, that they might supply the deficiencies of the high priests, who were sometimes very weak and unlearned men k; therefore they first lead him to him, to have his advice how to proceed, and to take him along with them to his son-in-law, where the great council was convened, and that he might use his interest and authority, in taking proper measures, in order to put Jesus to death; and especially they led him to him, for the reason here assigned;

for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas; so that he was, it is very probable, the older man: and being related to him, had an interest in him; and to whom such a sight was equally pleasing as to the high priest himself, or any of the council:

which was the high priest that same year; for the high priesthood was not for life, but was often changed, being bought and sold for money; [See comments on Lu 3:2]; so that this clause is very properly added, though Caiaphas held it longer, or, at least, had it more years than one; for Caiaphas was high priest when John began to preach, Lu 3:2; but he now succeeded Simeon ben Camhith, who was priest the year before; as was Eleazar the son of Ananus, the year before that; and before him Ishmael ben Phabi, who were all three successively put into the priesthood by Valerius Gratus, the Roman governor; as was also Caiaphas this year, and whose name was Joseph.

k Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 3, 6.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christ before Annas and Caiaphas; The Fall of Peter; Christ Arraigned; Peter Again Denies Christ.

      13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.   14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.   15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.   16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.   17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.   18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.   19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.   20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.   21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.   22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?   23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?   24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.   25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.   26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?   27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

      We have here an account of Christ’s arraignment before the high priest, and some circumstances that occurred therein which were omitted by the other evangelists; and Peter’s denying him, which the other evangelists had given the story of entire by itself, is interwoven with the other passages. The crime laid to his charge having relation to religion, the judges of the spiritual court took it to fall directly under their cognizance. Both Jews and Gentiles seized him, and so both Jews and Gentiles tried and condemned him, for he died for the sins of both. Let us go over the story in order.

      I. Having seized him, they led him away to Annas first, before they brought him to the court that was sat, expecting him, in the house of Caiaphas, v. 13. 1. They led him away, led him in triumph, as a trophy of their victory; led him as a lamb to the slaughter, and they led him through the sheep-gate spoken of Neh. iii. 1. For through that they went from the mount of Olives into Jerusalem. They hurried him away with violence, as if he had been the worst and vilest of malefactors. We had been led away of our own impetuous lusts, and led captive by Satan at his will, and, that we might be rescued, Christ was led away, led captive by Satan’s agents and instruments. 2. They led him away to their masters that sent them. It was now about midnight, and one would think they should have put him in ward (Lev. xxiv. 12), should have led him to some prison, till it was a proper time to call a court; but he is hurried away immediately, not to the justices of peace, to be committed, but to the judges to be condemned; so extremely violent was the prosecution, partly because they feared a rescue, which they would thus not only leave no time for, but give a terror to; partly because they greedily thirsted after Christ’s blood, as the eagle that hasteth to the prey. 3. They led him to Annas first. Probably his house lay in the way, and was convenient for them to call at to refresh themselves, and, as some think, to be paid for their service. I suppose Annas was old and infirm, and could not be present in council with the rest at that time of night, and yet earnestly desired to see the prey. To gratify him therefore with the assurance of their success, that the old man might sleep the better, and to receive his blessing for it, they produce their prisoner before him. It is sad to see those that are old and sickly, when they cannot commit sin as formerly, taking pleasure in those that do. Dr. Lightfoot thinks Annas was not present, because he had to attend early that morning in the temple, to examine the sacrifices which were that day to be offered, whether they were without blemish; if so, there was a significancy in it, that Christ, the great sacrifice, was presented to him, and sent away bound, as approved and ready for the altar. 4. This Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas the high priest; this kindred by marriage between them comes in as a reason either why Caiaphas ordered that this piece of respect should be done to Annas, to favour him with the first sight of the prisoner, or why Annas was willing to countenance Caiaphas in a matter his heart was so much upon. Note, Acquaintance and alliance with wicked people are a great confirmation to many in their wicked ways.

      II. Annas did not long detain them, being as willing as any of them to have the prosecution pushed on, and therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas, to his house, which was appointed for the rendezvous of the sanhedrim upon this occasion, or to the usual place in the temple where the high priest kept his court; this is mentioned, v. 24. But our translators intimate in the margin that it should come in here, and, accordingly, read it there, Annas had sent him. Observe here,

      1. The power of Caiaphas intimated (v. 13). He was high priest that same year. The high priest’s commission was during life; but there were now such frequent changes, by the Simoniacal artifices of aspiring men with the government, that it was become almost an annual office, a presage of its final period approaching; while they were undermining one another. God was overturning them all, that he might come whose right it was. Caiaphas was high priest that same year when Messiah was to be cut off, which intimates, (1.) That when a bad thing was to be done by a high priest, according to the foreknowledge of God, Providence so ordered it that a bad man should be in the chair to do it. (2.) That, when God would make it to appear what corruption there was in the heart of a bad man, he put him into a place of power, where he had temptation and opportunity to exert it. It was the ruin of Caiaphas that he was high priest that year, and so became a ringleader in the putting of Christ to death. Many a man’s advancement has lost him his reputation, and he had not been dishonoured if he had not been preferred.

      2. The malice of Caiaphas, which is intimated (v. 14) by the repeating of what he had said some time before, that, right or wrong, guilty or innocent, it was expedient that one man should die for the people, which refers to the story ch. xi. 50. This comes in here to show, (1.) What a bad man he was; this was that Caiaphas that governed himself and the church by rules of policy, in defiance of the rules of equity. (2.) What ill usage Christ was likely to meet with in his court, when his case was adjudged before it was heard, and they were already resolved what to do with him; he must die; so that his trial was a jest. Thus the enemies of Christ’s gospel are resolved, true or false, to run it down. (3.) It is a testimony to the innocency of our Lord Jesus, from the mouth of one of his worst enemies, who owned that he fell a sacrifice to the public good, and that it was not just he should die, but expedient only.

      3. The concurrence of Annas in the prosecution of Christ. He made himself a partaker in guilt, (1.) With the captain and officers, that without law or mercy had bound him; for he approved it by continuing him bound when he should have loosed him, he not being convicted of any crime, nor having attempted an escape. If we do not what we can to undo what others have ill done, we are accessaries ex post facto–after the fact. It was more excusable in the rude soldiers to bind him than in Annas, who should have known better, to continue him bound. (2.) With the chief priest and council that condemned him, and prosecuted him to death. This Annas was not present with them, yet thus he wished them good speed, and became a partaker of their evil deeds.

      III. In the house of Caiaphas, Simon Peter began to deny his Master, v. 15-18.

      1. It was with much ado that Peter got into the hall where the court was sitting, an account of which we have Joh 18:15; Joh 18:16. Here we may observe,

      (1.) Peter’s kindness to Christ, which (though it proved no kindness) appeared in two things:– [1.] That he followed Jesus when he was led away; though at first he fled with the rest, yet afterwards he took heart a little, and followed at some distance, calling to mind the promises he had made to adhere to him, whatever it should cost him. Those that had followed Christ in the midst of his honours, and shared with him in those honours, when the people cried Hosanna to him, ought to have followed him now in the midst of his reproaches, and to have shared with him in these. Those that truly love and value Christ will follow him all weathers and all ways. [2.] When he could not get in where Jesus was in the midst of his enemies, he stood at the door without, willing to be as near him as he could, and waiting for an opportunity to get nearer. Thus when we meet with opposition in following Christ we must show our good-will. But yet this kindness of Peter’s was no kindness, because he had not strength and courage enough to persevere in it, and so, as it proved, he did but run himself into a snare: and even his following Christ, considering all things, was to be blamed, because Christ, who knew him better than he knew himself, had expressly told him (ch. xiii. 36), Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, and had told him again and again that he would deny him; and he had lately had experience of his own weakness in forsaking him. Note, We must take heed of tempting God by running upon difficulties beyond our strength, and venturing too far in a way of suffering. If our call be clear to expose ourselves, we may hope that God will enable us to honour him; but, if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves.

      (2.) The other disciple’s kindness to Peter, which yet, as it proved, was no kindness neither. St. John several times in this gospel speaking of himself as another disciple, many interpreters have been led by this to fancy that this other disciple here was John; and many conjectures they have how he should come to be known to the high-priest; propter generis nobilitatem–being of superior birth, saith Jerome, Epitaph. Marcel., as if he were a better gentleman born than his brother James, when they were both the sons of Zebedee the fisherman; some will tell you that he had sold his estate to the high priest, others that he supplied his family with fish, both which are very improbable. But I see no reason to think that this other disciple was John, or one of the twelve; other sheep Christ had, which were not of the fold; and this might be, as the Syriac read it, unus ex discipulis aliis–one of those other disciples that believe in Christ, but resided at Jerusalem, and kept their places there; perhaps Joseph of Arimathea, or Nicodemus, known to the high priest, but not known to him to be disciples of Christ. Note, As there are many who seem disciples and are not so, so there are many who are disciples and seem not so. There are good people hid in courts, even in Nero’s, as well as hid in crowds. We must not conclude a man to be no friend to Christ merely because he has acquaintance and conversation with those that were his known enemies. Now, [1.] This other disciple, whoever he was, showed a respect to Peter, in introducing him, not only to gratify his curiosity and affection, but to give him an opportunity of being serviceable to his Master upon his trial, if there were occasion. Those that have a real kindness for Christ and his ways, though their temper may be reserved and their circumstances may lead them to be cautious and retired, yet, if their faith be sincere, they will discover, when they are called to it, which way their inclination lies, by being ready to do a professed disciple a good turn. Peter perhaps had formerly introduced this disciple into conversation with Christ, and now he requites his kindness, and is not ashamed to own him, though, it should seem, he had at this time but a poor downcast appearance. [2.] But this kindness proved no kindness, nay a great diskindness; by letting him into the high priest’s hall, he let him into temptation, and the consequence was bad. Note, The courtesies of our friends often prove a snare to us, through a misguided affection.

      2. Peter, having got in, was immediately assaulted with the temptation, and foiled by it, v. 17. Observe here,

      (1.) How slight the attack was. It was but a silly maid, of so small account that she was set to keep the door, that challenged him, and she only asked him carelessly, Art not thou one of this man’s disciples? probably suspecting it by his sheepish look, and coming in timorously. We should many a time better maintain a good cause if we had a good heart on it, and could put a good face on it. Peter would have had some reason to take the alarm if Malchus had set upon him, and had said, “This is he that cut off my ear, and I will have his head for it;” but when a maid only asked him, Art not thou one of them? he might without danger have answered, And what if I am? Suppose the servants had ridiculed him, and insulted over him, upon it, those can bear but little for Christ that cannot bear this; this is but running with the footmen.

      (2.) How speedy the surrender was. Without taking time to recollect himself, he suddenly answered, I am not. If he had had the boldness of the lion, he would have said, “It is my honour that I am so;” or, if he had had the wisdom of the serpent, he would have kept silence at this time, for it was an evil time. But, all his care being for his own safety, he thought he could not secure this but by a peremptory denial: I am not; he not only denies it, but even disdains it, and scorns her words.

      (3.) Yet he goes further into the temptation: And the servants and officers stood there, and Peter with them v. 18.

      [1.] See how the servants made much of themselves; the night being cold, they made a fire in the hall, not for their masters (they were so eager in persecuting Christ that they forgot cold), but for themselves to refresh themselves. They cared not what became of Christ; all their care was to sit and warm themselves, Amos vi. 6.

      [2.] See how Peter herded himself with them, and made one among them. He sat and warmed himself. First, It was a fault bad enough that he did not attend his Master, and appear for him at the upper end of the hall, where he was now under examination. He might have been a witness for him, and have confronted the false witnesses that swore against him, if his Master had called him; at least, he might have been a witness to him, might have taken an exact notice of what passed, that he might relate it to the other disciples, who could none of them get in to hear the trial; he might have learned by his Master’s example how to carry himself when it should come to his turn to suffer thus; yet neither his conscience nor his curiosity could bring him into the court, but he sits by, as if, like Gallio, he cared for none of these things. And yet at the same time we have reason to think his heart was as full of grief and concern as it could hold, but he had not the courage to own it. Lord, lead us not into temptation. Secondly, It was much worse that he joined himself with those that were his Master’s enemies: He stood with them, and warmed himself; this was a poor excuse for joining with them. A little thing will draw those into bad company that will be drawn to it by the love of a good fire. If Peter’s zeal for his Master had not frozen, but had continued in the heat it seemed to be of but a few hours before, he had not had occasion to warm himself now. Peter was much to be blamed, 1. Because he associated with these wicked men, and kept company with them. Doubtless they were diverting themselves with this night’s expedition, scoffing at Christ, at what he had said, at what he had done, and triumphing in their victory over him; and what sort of entertainment would this give to Peter? If he said as they said, or by silence gave consent, he involved himself in sin; if not, he exposed himself to danger. If Peter had not so much courage as to appear publicly for his Master, yet he might have had so much devotion as to retire into a corner, and weep in secret for his Master’s sufferings, and his own sin in forsaking him; if he could not have done good, he might have kept out of the way of doing hurt. It is better to abscond than appear to no purpose, or bad purpose. 2. Because he desired to be thought one of them, that he might not be suspected to be a disciple of Christ. Is this Peter? What a contradiction is this to the prayer of every good man, Gather not my soul with sinners! Saul among the prophets is not so absurd as David among the Philistines. Those that deprecate the lot of the scornful hereafter should dread the seat of the scornful now. It is ill warming ourselves with those with whom we are in danger of burning ourselves, Ps. cxli. 4.

      IV. Peter, Christ’s friend, having begun to deny him, the high priest, his enemy, begins to accuse him, or rather urges him to accuse himself, v. 19-21. It should seem, the first attempt was to prove him a seducer, and a teacher of false doctrine, which this evangelist relates; and, when they failed in the proof of this, then they charged him with blasphemy, which is related by the other evangelists, and therefore omitted here. Observe,

      1. The articles or heads upon which Christ was examined (v. 19): concerning his disciples and his doctrine. Observe,

      (1.) The irregularity of the process; it was against all law and equity. They seize him as a criminal, and now that he is their prisoner they have nothing to lay to his charge; no libel, no prosecutor; but the judge himself must be the prosecutor, and the prisoner himself the witness, and, against all reason and justice, he is put on to be his own accuser.

      (2.) The intention. The high priest then (oun—therefore, which seems to refer to v. 14), because he had resolved that Christ must be sacrificed to their private malice under colour of the public good, examined him upon those interrogatories which would touch his life. He examined him, [1.] Concerning his disciples, that he might charge him with sedition, and represent him as dangerous to the Roman government, as well as to the Jewish church. He asked him who were his disciples–what number they were–of what country–what were their names and characters, insinuating that his scholars were designed for soldiers, and would in time become a formidable body. Some think his question concerning his disciples was, “What is now become of them all? Where are they? Why do they not appear?” upbraiding him with their cowardice in deserting him, and thus adding to the affliction of it. There was something significant in this, that Christ’s calling and owning his disciples was the first thing laid to his charge, for it was for their sakes that he sanctified himself and suffered. [2.] Concerning his doctrine, that they might charge him with heresy, and bring him under the penalty of the law against false prophets, Deu 13:9; Deu 13:10. This was a matter properly cognizable in that court (Deut. xvii. 12), therefore a prophet could not perish but at Jerusalem, where that court sat. They could not prove any false doctrine upon him; but they hoped to extort something from him which they might distort to his prejudice, and to make him an offender for some word or other, Isa. xxix. 21. They said nothing to him concerning his miracles, by which he had done so much good, and proved his doctrine beyond contradiction, because of these they were sure they could take no hold. Thus the adversaries of Christ while they are industriously quarrelling with his truth, willfully shut their eyes against the evidences of it, and take no notice of them.

      2. The appeal Christ made, in answer to these interrogatories. (1.) As to his disciples, he said nothing, because it was an impertinent question; if his doctrine was sound and good, his having disciples to whom to communicate it was no more than what was practised and allowed by their own doctors. If Caiaphas, in asking him concerning his disciples, designed to ensnare them, and bring them into trouble, it was in kindness to them that Christ said nothing of them, for he had said, Let these go their way. If he meant to upbraid him with their cowardice, no wonder that he said nothing, for

Rudet hc opprobria nobis, Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli– Shame attaches when charges are exhibited that cannot be refuted:

      he would say nothing to condemn them, and could say nothing to justify them. (2.) As to his doctrine, he said nothing in particular, but in general referred himself to those that heard him, being not only made manifest to God, but made manifest also in their consciences, Joh 18:20; Joh 18:21.

      [1.] He tacitly charges his judges with illegal proceedings. He does not indeed speak evil of the rulers of the people, nor say now to these princes, You are wicked; but he appeals to the settled rules of their own court, whether they dealt fairly by him. Do you indeed judge righteously? Ps. lviii. 1. So here, Why ask you me? Which implies two absurdities in judgment: First, “Why ask you me now concerning my doctrine, when you have already condemned it?” They had made an order of court for excommunicating all that owned him (ch. ix. 22), had issued out a proclamation for apprehending him; and now they come to ask what his doctrine is! Thus was he condemned, as his doctrine and cause commonly are, unheard. Secondly, “Why ask you me? Must I accuse myself, when you have no evidence against me?”

      [2.] He insists upon his fair and open dealing with them in the publication of his doctrine, and justifies himself with this. The crime which the sanhedrim by the law was to enquire after was the clandestine spreading of dangerous doctrines, enticing secretly, Deut. xiii. 6. As to this, therefore, Christ clears himself very fully. First, As to the manner of his preaching. He spoke openly, parresia—with freedom and plainness of speech; he did not deliver things ambiguously, as Apollo did his oracles. Those that would undermine the truth, and spread corrupt notions, seek to accomplish their purpose by sly insinuation, putting queries, starting difficulties, and asserting nothing; but Christ explained himself fully, with, Verily, verily, I say unto you; his reproofs were free and bold, and his testimonies express against the corruptions of the age. Secondly, As to the persons he preached to: He spoke to the world, to all that had ears to hear, and were willing to hear him, high or low, learned or unlearned, Jew or Gentile, friend or foe. His doctrine feared not the censure of a mixed multitude; nor did he grudge the knowledge of it to any (as the masters of some rare invention commonly do), but freely communicated it, as the sun does his beams. Thirdly, As to the places he preached in. When he was in the country, he preached ordinarily in the synagogues–the places of meeting for worship, and on the sabbath-day-the time of meeting; when he came up to Jerusalem, he preached the same doctrine in the temple at the time of the solemn feasts, when the Jews from all parts assembled there; and though he often preached in private houses, and on mountains, and by the sea-side, to show that his word and worship were not to be confined to temples and synagogues, yet what he preached in private was the very same with what he delivered publicly. Note, The doctrine of Christ, purely and plainly preached, needs not be ashamed to appear in the most numerous assembly, for it carries its own strength and beauty along with it. What Christ’s faithful ministers say they would be willing all the world should hear. Wisdom cries in the places of concourse, Pro 1:21; Pro 8:3; Pro 9:3. Fourthly, As to the doctrine itself. He said nothing in secret contrary to what he said in public, but only by way of repetition and explication: In secret have I said nothing; as if he had been either suspicious of the truth of it, or conscious of any ill design in it. He sought no corners, for he feared no colours, nor said any thing that he needed to be ashamed of; what he did speak in private to his disciples he ordered them to proclaim on the house-tops, Matt. x. 27. God saith of himself (Isa. xlv. 19), I have not spoken in secret; his commandment is not hidden, Deut. xxx. 11. And the righteousness of faith speaks in like manner, Rom. x. 6. Veritas nihil metuit nisi abscondi–truth fears nothing but concealment.–Tertullian.

      [3.] He appeals to those that had heard him, and desires that they might be examined what doctrine he had preached, and whether it had that dangerous tendency that was surmised: “Ask those that heard me what I said unto them; some of them may be in court, or may be sent for out of their beds.” He means not his friends and followers, who might be presumed to speak in his favour, but, Ask any impartial hearer; ask your own officers. Some think he pointed to them, when he said, Behold, they know what I said, referring to the report which they had made of his preaching (ch. vii. 46), Never man spoke like this man. Nay, you may ask some upon the bench; for it is probable that some of them had heard him, and had been put to silence by him. Note, The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and has so much right and reason on its side that those who will judge impartially cannot but witness to it.

      V. While the judges were examining him, the servants that stood by were abusing him, Joh 18:22; Joh 18:23.

      1. It was a base affront which one of the officers gave him; though he spoke with so much calmness and convincing evidence, this insolent fellow struck him with the palm of his hand, probably on the side of his head or face, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? as if he had behaved himself rudely to the court.

      (1.) He struck him, edoke rhapisma—he gave him a blow. Some think it signifies a blow with a rod or wand, from rhabdos, or with the staff which was the badge of his office. Now the scripture was fulfilled (Isa. l. 6), I gave my cheeks, eis rhapismata (so the LXX.) to blows, the word here used. And Mic. v. 1, They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek; and the type answered (Job xvi. 10), They have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully. It was unjust to strike one that neither said nor did amiss; it was insolent for a mean servant to strike one that was confessedly a person of account; it was cowardly to strike one that had his hands tied; and barbarous to strike a prisoner at the bar. Here was a breach of the peace in the face of the court, and yet the judges countenanced it. Confusion of face was our due; but Christ here took it to himself: “Upon me be the curse, the shame.”

      (2.) He checked him in a haughty imperious manner: Answerest thou the high priest so? As if the blessed Jesus were not good enough to speak to his master, or not wise enough to know how to speak to him, but, like a rude and ignorant prisoner, must be controlled by the jailor, and taught how to behave. Some of the ancients suggest that this officer was Malchus, who owed to Christ the healing of his ear, and the saving of his head, and yet made him this ill return. But, whoever it was, it was done to please the high priest, and to curry favour with him; for what he said implied a jealousy for the dignity of the high priest. Wicked rulers will not want wicked servants, who will help forward the affliction of those whom their masters persecute. There was a successor of this high priest that commanded the bystanders to smite Paul thus on the mouth, Acts xxiii. 2. Some think this officer took himself to be affronted by Christ’s appeal to those about him concerning his doctrine, as if he would have vouched him to be a witness; and perhaps he was one of those officers that had spoken honourably of him (ch. vii. 46), and, lest he should now be thought a secret friend to him, he thus appears a bitter enemy.

      2. Christ bore this affront with wonderful meekness and patience (v. 23): “If I have spoken evil, in what I have now said, bear witness of the evil. Observe it to the court, and let them judge of it, who are the proper judges; but if well, and as it did become me, why smitest thou me?” Christ could have answered him with a miracle of wrath, could have struck him dumb or dead, or have withered the hand that was lifted up against him. But this was the day of his patience and suffering, and he answered him with the meekness of wisdom, to teach us not to avenge ourselves, not to render railing for railing, but with the innocency of the dove to bear injuries, even when with the wisdom of the serpent, as our Saviour, we show the injustice of them, and appeal to the magistrate concerning them. Christ did not here turn the other cheek, by which it appears that that rule, Matt. v. 39, is not to be understood literally; a man may possibly turn the other cheek, and yet have his heart full of malice; but, comparing Christ’s precept with his pattern, we learn, (1.) That in such cases we must not be our own avengers, nor judges in our own cause. We must rather receive than give the second blow, which makes the quarrel; we are allowed to defend ourselves, but not to avenge ourselves: the magistrate (if it be necessary for the preserving of the public peace, and the restraining and terrifying of evil-doers) is to be the avenger, Rom. xiii. 4. (2.) Our resentment of injuries done us must always be rational, and never passionate; such Christ’s here was; when he suffered, he reasoned, but threatened not. He fairly expostulated with him that did him the injury, and so may we. (3.) When we are called out to suffering, we must accommodate ourselves to the inconveniences of a suffering state, with patience, and by one indignity done us be prepared to receive another, and to make the best of it.

      VI. While the servants were thus abusing him, Peter was proceeding to deny him, v. 25-27. It is a sad story, and none of the least of Christ’s sufferings.

      1. He repeated the sin the second time, v. 25. While he was warming himself with the servants, as one of them, they asked him, Art not thou one of his disciples? What dost thou here among us? He, perhaps, hearing that Christ was examined about his disciples, and fearing he should be seized, or at least smitten, as his Master was, if he should own it, flatly denied it, and said, I am not.

      (1.) It was his great folly to thrust himself into the temptation, by continuing in the company of those that were unsuitable for him, and that he had nothing to do with. He staid to warm himself; but those that warm themselves with evil doers grow cold towards good people and good things, and those that are fond of the devil’s fire-side are in danger of the devil’s fire. Peter might have stood by his Master at the bar, and have warmed himself better than here, at the fire of his Master’s love, which many waters could not quench,Son 8:6; Son 8:7. He might there have warmed himself with zeal for his Master, and indignation at his persecutors; but he chose rather to warm with them than to warm against them. But how could one (one disciple) be warm alone? Eccl. iv. 11.

      (2.) It was his great unhappiness that he was again assaulted by the temptation; and no other could be expected, for this was a place, this an hour, of temptation. When the judge asked Christ about his disciples, probably the servants took the hint, and challenged Peter for one of them, “Answer to thy name.” See here, [1.] The subtlety of the tempter in running down one whom he saw falling, and mustering a greater force against him; not a maid now, but all the servants. Note, Yielding to one temptation invites another, and perhaps a stronger. Satan redoubles his attacks when we give ground. [2.] The danger of bad company. We commonly study to approve ourselves to those with whom we choose to associate; we value ourselves upon their good word and covet to stand right in their opinion. As we choose our people we choose our praise, and govern ourselves accordingly; we are therefore concerned to make the first choice well, and not to mingle with those whom we cannot please without displeasing God.

      (3.) It was his great weakness, nay, it was his great wickedness, to yield to the temptation, and to say, I am not one of his disciples, as one ashamed of that which was his honour, and afraid of suffering for it, which would have been yet more his honour. See how the fear of man brings a snare. When Christ was admired, and caressed, and treated with respect, Peter pleased himself, and perhaps prided himself, in this, that he was a disciple of Christ, and so put in for a share in the honours done to his Master. Thus many who seem fond of the reputation of religion when it is in fashion are ashamed of the reproach of it; but we must take it for better and worse.

      2. He repeated the sin the third time, Joh 18:26; Joh 18:27. Here he was attacked by one of the servants, who was kinsman to Malchus, who, when he heard Peter deny himself to be a disciple of Christ, gave him the lie with great assurance: “Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Witness my kinsman’s ear.” Peter then denied again, as if he knew nothing of Christ, nothing of the garden, nothing of all this matter.

      (1.) This third assault of the temptation was more close than the former: before his relation to Christ was only suspected, here it is proved upon him by one that saw him with Jesus, and saw him draw his sword in his defence. Note, Those who by sin think to help themselves out of trouble do but entangle and embarrass themselves the more. Dare to be brave, for truth will out. A bird of the air may perhaps tell the matter which we seek to conceal with a lie. Notice is taken of this servant’s being akin to Malchus, because this circumstance would make it the more a terror to Peter. “Now,” thinks he, “I am gone, my business is done, there needs no other witness nor prosecutor.” We should not make any man in particular our enemy if we can help it, because the time may come when either he or some of his relations may have us at their mercy. He that may need a friend should not make a foe. But observe, though here was sufficient evidence against Peter, and sufficient provocation given by his denial to have prosecuted him, yet he escapes, has no harm done him nor attempted to be done. Note, We are often drawn into sin by groundless causeless fears, which there is no occasion for, and which a small degree of wisdom and resolution would make nothing of.

      (2.) His yielding to it was no less base than the former: He denied again. See here, [1.] The nature of sin in general: the heart is hardened by the deceitfulness of it, Heb. iii. 13. It was a strange degree of effrontery that Peter had arrived to on a sudden, that he could with such assurance stand in a lie against so clear a disproof; but the beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water, when once the fence is broken men easily go from bad to worse. [2.] Of the sin of lying in particular; it is a fruitful sin, and upon this account exceedingly sinful: one lie needs another to support it, and that another. It is a rule in the devil’s politics Male facta male factis tegere, ne perpluant—To cover sin with sin, in order to escape detection.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Annas first. This supplies the detail of an examination preliminary to that before the high – priest, which is omitted by the Synoptists.

Father – in – law [] . Only here in the New Testament.

That same year. See on 11 49.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And led him away to Annas first;” (kai egagon pros hannas proton) “And they led him directly to Annas first,” who did nothing to release Him, an account given by John only; Annas was the elder, apparently retired high priest, a councilor or elder adviser only, without Jewish administrative authority, Luk 3:2.

2) “For he was father in law to Caiaphas,” (hen gar pentheros tou kaiapha) “For he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas,” who was now administrative high priest, or decision making high priest, at this time, Joh 11:49-53. Annas had five sons who occupied the office in succession after his vacating the office AD 7-14.

3) “Which was the high priest that same year.” (hos hen archiereus tou eniautou ekeinou) “Who was the high priest of that same year,” and until AD 37, and gave directions regarding administrative matters, inclusive of acts of punishment and whippings in the synagogue for such as broke or were adjudged to have broken Moses’ law, as further carried out by the chief priests in various localities, Act 9:1-2; Act 4:1-6; Act 5:17-28; Act 5:40.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

13. And led him away to Annas first. The other Evangelists omit this circumstance, because it does not greatly affect the substance of the narrative; for nothing was done there that was worthy of being recorded. Perhaps the convenience of the place induced them to imprison Christ in the house of Annas, till the high priest assembled the council.

The high priest of that year. He does not mean that the office of the high priesthood was annual, as many have falsely imagined, but that Caiaphas was high priest at that time, which appears plainly from Josephus. By the injunction of the Law, this honor was perpetual, and ended only at the death of him who held it; but ambition and intestine broils gave occasion to the Roman governors to dethrone one high priest and put another in his room, at their own pleasure, either for money or for favor. Thus Vitellius deposed Caiaphas, and appointed Jonathan, the son of Annas, to be his successor.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(13, 14) And led him away to Annas first.Comp. for account of Annas Note on Luk. 3:2, and Act. 4:6. This trial before Annas was probably a preliminary investigation, distinct from the formal trial before Caiaphas, narrated in the earlier Gospels. (Comp. Joh. 18:19; Joh. 18:24.)

For he was father in law to Caiaphas.The personal relationship between Annas and Caiaphas had led to a closeness of connection in official duties, which makes it difficult, with our partial knowledge of the circumstances, to trace the position taken by each in the trial of our Lord. This remark of St. Johns suggests that Annas may have occupied part of the high priests palace. He had been high priest. He is called high priest in the following year (Act. 4:6). His age would have given him authority in the Sanhedrin, which Caiaphas himself is not likely to have questioned, and he may have been President of the Sanhedrin or Father of the Beth Din (House of Judgment), Whether officially, or personally, or both, he was, from the Jewish point of view, a person whose counsel and influence were of the utmost importance, and to him they bring Jesus for this doctrinal investigation (Joh. 18:19); while it is necessary that He should be sent to the legal high priest for official trial in the presence of the Sanhedrin (Joh. 18:24), before being handed over to the civil power (Joh. 18:28). It does not follow that the high priest (Caiaphas) was not present at this investigation; but it was altogether of an informal character.

Which was the high priest that same year.On this clause, and the whole of the following verse, comp. Notes on Joh. 11:49-52. The prophecy is quoted now that its fulfilment is close at hand, and that the act of Caiaphas is about to lead to it.

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

133. JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED BY PETER, Joh 18:13-27 .

Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72; Luk 22:54-62.

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

13. To Annas first This Annas is mentioned in Luk 3:2 as being high priest, together with Caiaphas, at the opening of John the Baptist’s ministry, his name occupying the prior place to that of his colleague. He is pronounced by Josephus as the most fortunate man of his time in Judea; for he was high priest himself for fourteen years, having been so appointed by Cyrenius as far back as the taxing mentioned by Luke before our Saviour’s birth; and he had four sons who filled that office, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. His venerable age, his great abilities, his ancient title to the priesthood, rendered him perhaps the most important Jew in the capital.

The people, animated by a strong national feeling, doubtless regarded him as the permanent high priest. Both Herod and the Romans had capriciously changed the high priest, so that it had almost become an annual office. It is probable that he was the prime mover in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that in this, as in many other measures, Caiaphas was but the organ of his decisions.

High Priest that same year In apparent contrast with Annas, who was popularly held as the permanent rightful high priest.

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

‘And led him to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was High Priest that year. Now Caiaphas was he who gave counsel to the Judaisers that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.’

Annas had previously been High Priest but he had been replaced by the Romans with Caiaphas. However as far as the Jewish people were concerned he was still seen as the High Priest for the office was until death (Numbers 25:25). He was thus in the ideal position to carry out a preliminary examination as he was recognised by the people as having authority and yet not officially involved. It is apparent all through that what the people of Jerusalem would think counted much with the tribunal. While certain niceties may be ignored (and this probably only happened through desperation) they knew that the verdict must be seen to be ‘just’.

In the time of Jesus Israel saw themselves as a pure theocracy, ruled over by the Sanhedrin over which presided the High Priest, although final authority lay with the Romans. Much of the High Priest’s influence derived from his priestly office, especially his role on the Day of Atonement, so until 45 AD, when the Emperor Claudius ordered their release, the High Priestly robes were kept in custody in the tower of Antonia, being released only for the Feasts. This was so in the days of Herod the Great, and then of Archelaus, and then the Roman governors, in order to maintain control over him and the people. But the High Priest was also seen as the leader on religious and associated matters of world-wide Jewry, and was treated as such by the Romans.

We must differentiate between the official High Priest and those who could use the title. On the occasions when someone had to stand in for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement because of illness or defilement, a rare occurrence, that person also retained the title of ‘High Priest’ from then on, but not the powers going with the title. Indeed we know from Acts that the title could be applied in the plural to members of the chief priestly families (Act 4:6).

Thus from the point of view of the Jews the official High Priesthood was for life, even though it was not so viewed by the external politics of the day in view of his powerful influence on things. So while Annas was deposed from the position in 15 AD, something religiously impossible, and was replaced, he remained High Priest as far as Israel was concerned. In 18 AD his son-in-law Caiaphas became High Priest. (Intermarriage among the chief priestly families was common). Five of Annas’s sons would also be High Priests.

Thus he retained a strong grip on the hearts of the people who still looked on him as High Priest, and resented Roman interference. Indeed he bore the title, along with some of its influence, for life. Thus Luke could say ‘the High Priest was Annas and Caiaphas’ (Luk 3:2), with a deliberate use of the singular because they were looked on by the people as sharing the office even though not officially. The application of the title especially applied when presiding over the Sanhedrin.

‘High Priest that year’. This is not suggesting yearly appointment but pointing to his being High Priest in that particular never to be forgotten year, the year of Jesus’ crucifixion.

‘Caiaphas was he who –’. Having already declared the things that he previously had, Caiaphas was clearly biased. Certainly the readers would recognise the bias. It was as though the judge has given his verdict before the case. The inference may therefore be that the intention was to have an independent view from Annas. But it may alternately have been that Caiaphas was not there, simply because he had gone to arrange things to their satisfaction with Pilate.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Messianic Lamb Is Examined Before the High Priest – Peter Denies Jesus ( Joh 18:13-27 ).

Just as the Passover lambs had to be examined by the priests before being sacrificed, so now Jesus, God’s Passover Lamb, was to be examined. It had to be made apparent that He was holy and without blemish.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 18:13. And led him away to Annas first, See the note on Mat 26:57. Caiaphas seems to have enjoyed the sacerdotal dignity during the whole course of Pilate’s government in Judea; for he was advanced to it by Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor, and was divested of it by Vitellius, governor of Syria, after he deposed Pilate from his procuratorship,

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

And led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. (14) Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. (15) And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple; that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. (16) But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. (17) Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? he saith, I am not. (18) And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them and warmed himself.

I have before noticed in the former Evangelists, some of the leading circumstances concerning the wearisome and painful walks of Jesus, from the Garden to Annas, and from Annas to Caiaphas, to Pilate, and to Herod, to which I refer. But there are several very weighty things connected with this view of the Lord Jesus, when led as a lamb to the slaughter, that merit our closest attention, and which, in this place, I would beg to propose to the Reader’s notice.

It was according to the law of sacrifices, that the Children of Israel should present them first to the Priest, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And probably this with a view, to see, that the thing offered had no blemish. I beg the Reader to turn to Lev 17:1-9 in proof. Now though Annas, and Caiaphas, were both silent as to the spotlessness of Christ, yet the Holy Ghost so ordered, that Jesus should not be led away, without this testimony: and therefore Pilate, in passing sentence, shall declare the Lord’s innocency. See Mat 27:24-25 . What a very blessed proof this is, of Christ, the great Sacrifice. Heb 7:26 ; 1Pe 1:17-18 .

And while we are taking this transient view of the Lord Jesus, in the presentation before the High Priest, as a spotless sacrifice, it may not be amiss to connect with it another; namely, that when led away to slaughter, and bound with the sins of his people; so here again there was a correspondence, in being led without the camp, and suffering without the gate, Heb 13:12 . He was taken from prison and from judgment, the Prophet said, when the Lord Jehovah had laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:8 . Surely the wonderful correspondence of those things with the types of old, could not have had such an exact fulfilment, but from God the Holy Ghost, watching over his Church, and arranging the whole to the Lord’s glory, and to the joy of his people.

In relation to the following of Christ, by Peter, and another disciple; I do not think it necessary to enlarge. Whether this other disciple was John, as has been generally supposed, or not, cannot be a point of great consequence to seek to know, since the Holy Ghost is silent upon it. I confess I should rather think that it was not John, or either of the Apostles; but rather one of those many private disciples we read of, Joh 12:42 . For John was of Galilee, as well as Peter, and therefore his speech would have betrayed John, as well as Peter. Neither is it likely that John, a poor fisherman of Galilee, should have had much acquaintance at the High Priest’s palace. But be this as it may, it cannot be important to determine; since the Holy Ghost hath not explained.

But in relation to Peter, it was among the overruling providences of the Lord, that he should follow Christ at this memorable hall, because here was to take place that event, of his denial of Christ, and that grace of Jesus towards him, in his recovery from so awful a fall, as hath proved in the Church of Christ, and will prove until the whole Church is brought to heaven, a subject of the deepest teaching of man’s nothingness, and Christ’s all-sufficiency. See Luk 22:31 .

I pray the Reader to remark what is said in this scripture of the fire in the hall, kindled to warm the servants, and of the coldness of the night, which made it necessary. And yet this was the selfsame night, and but a few hours before, when Jesus sweat the bloody sweat, under the burning heat of his agony in the garden. Reader! what must the sufferings of the God-Man have been, when in the open air, in a garden, and in a night of extreme cold, the Lord was thus exercised, when within a hall, full of company, as it should seem, a fire was kindled to give warmth to the people!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

Ver. 13. And led him away to Annas first ] Who would not go to bed (late though it were) till he had seen Christ brought bound before him, and then cried out, likely, as Hannibal did, when he saw a pit full of man’s blood, O formosum spectaculum! Oh beautiful sight! So Stephen Gardiner would not sit down to dinner till the news came of the good bishops burnt at Oxford. Then he came out rejoicing, and saying to the Duke of Norfolk, Now let us go to dinner; but it was the last that ever he eat for it. “Shall they escape by iniquity?” No, “in anger cast them down, O God,”Psa 56:7Psa 56:7 .

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

13. ] On Annas, see note Luk 3:2 . The influence of Annas appears to have been very great, and Act 4:6 , he is called the High Priest , in the year following this. The whole matter is discussed in Friedlieb, Arch. der Leid. 22. He ends by saying that the narrative evidently rests upon some arrangement with regard to the High Priesthood now unknown to us, but accountable enough by foreign influence and the deterioration of the priestly class through bribes and intrigues, to which Josephus and the Talmud sufficiently testify. This hearing is entirely distinct from that in the other Gospels. There , no questions are asked of Jesus about His disciples or doctrine ( Joh 18:19 ): there witnesses are produced, and the whole proceedings are after a legal form. That hearing was in a public court of justice, before the assembled Sanhedrim; this was a private and informal questioning. That Annas should be so often called ‘the High Priest,’ is no objection to this view: see on Luke as above: see also note on Joh 18:24 . The two hearings are maintained to be one and the same by Luther, Grot., Bengel, Lampe, Tholuck, Lcke, De Wette, Friedlieb, Wordsworth, &c.; the view here taken is maintained by Chrys., Aug [243] , Euthym [244] , Olsh., Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meyer, Ebrard, Wieseler, Hase, Lange, Hess, von Meyer, von Gerlach, Luthardt, and Stier (vi. 284, edn. 2).

[243] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

[244] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 18:13-24 . Examination before Annas .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Joh 18:13 . , “and they led Him to Annas first”. refers to the subsequent examinations, Joh 18:24 ; Joh 18:28 . The reason for taking Him to Annas first was that he was father-in-law of the actual high priest, Caiaphas, and was a man of commanding influence. He had himself been high priest from A.D. 7 14, while five of his sons occupied the office in succession. Caiaphas held office till 37 A.D. On see Joh 11:49 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

to = unto. Greek. pros. App-104. Annas. He had been deposed in 779 A. u. c., the year our Lord’s ministry began (App-179), and three others had been promoted and deposed before Caiaphas was appointed by Valerius Gratus. Our Lord was taken to Annas first, because his experience in the Law would the better enable him to formulate a charge against Him.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

13.] On Annas, see note Luk 3:2. The influence of Annas appears to have been very great, and Act 4:6, he is called the High Priest, in the year following this. The whole matter is discussed in Friedlieb, Arch. der Leid. 22. He ends by saying that the narrative evidently rests upon some arrangement with regard to the High Priesthood now unknown to us, but accountable enough by foreign influence and the deterioration of the priestly class through bribes and intrigues, to which Josephus and the Talmud sufficiently testify. This hearing is entirely distinct from that in the other Gospels. There, no questions are asked of Jesus about His disciples or doctrine (Joh 18:19): there witnesses are produced, and the whole proceedings are after a legal form. That hearing was in a public court of justice, before the assembled Sanhedrim; this was a private and informal questioning. That Annas should be so often called the High Priest, is no objection to this view: see on Luke as above: see also note on Joh 18:24. The two hearings are maintained to be one and the same by Luther, Grot., Bengel, Lampe, Tholuck, Lcke, De Wette, Friedlieb, Wordsworth, &c.;-the view here taken is maintained by Chrys., Aug[243], Euthym[244], Olsh., Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meyer, Ebrard, Wieseler, Hase, Lange, Hess, von Meyer, von Gerlach, Luthardt, and Stier (vi. 284, edn. 2).

[243] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

[244] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 18:13. , first) merely by way of honour. Comp. Act 4:6 [where Annas is mentioned as High Priest; the same words however being understood after Caiaphas, who comes next]. That the Saviour was presently after led thence to Caiaphas, John intimates by the fact, that he says that Caiaphas was the High Priest, and that Peter went in with Jesus into the palace of Caiaphas: Joh 18:15, at the end.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 18:13

Joh 18:13

and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.-Annas had been high priest and still acted sometimes in that capacity, although Caiaphas, his son-in-law at the time, was acting high priest. It is said that Annas had five sons, who in succession filled the high priests place in addition to his son-in-law. He was of great influence. It is likely that Jesus was first brought before him to inquire into the matter as a court of inquiry to see what charges should be formulated against him. [Annas was about sixty years old. While the synoptics all speak of the leading away of Jesus, only John mentions Annas, and he alone gives an account of the examination before Annas (verses 19-23), which preceded his appearance before Caiaphas. Annas was a smooth, cunning intriguer, and ruled at this time through his son-in-law; and such was his overpowering influence as head of the Sadducean party that it was deemed an act of policy to take Jesus first to him before presenting him to Caiaphas.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

led: Mat 26:57

Annas: Luk 3:2, Act 4:6

that: Joh 11:51,”And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest, Joh 18:24.

Reciprocal: Mat 26:3 – Caiaphas Mar 14:53 – they led Joh 11:49 – Caiaphas

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

3

Led him away to Annas first. There was no provision made in the law of Moses for more than one high priest to be in office at the same time, but in the days of Christ the secular government was taking much part in the affairs of the Jews. In that arrangement Annas was president of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas was high priest. Verse 24 shows that Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas in the bonds put there by the mob.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

[To Annas first.] For “Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas,” as also the sagan of the priests; Luk 3:2; Targum in 2Ki 23:4. Now sagan was the same with the prefect or ruler; which we have so frequent mention of amongst the Rabbins.

The ‘ruler’ saith unto them. Gloss: The ‘ruler’ is the ‘sagan.’ ‘Sagan’ is the same with ‘ruler.’

There is frequent mention amongst the Talmudists, of R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests. He was destroyed, with Rabban Simeon and Ismael, at the siege of Jerusalem. But I am apt to think he was that sharp and unjust judge that St. Paul had to do with, Acts_23, rather than our Annas in this place.

Why they should carry our Saviour, when they had taken him, before Annas the sagan, sooner than to Caiaphas the high priest, the evangelist gives us one reason, viz. “because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas”; under which another reason may be deduced, viz. That he was the older man, of greater experience and skill in the law: for there were sometimes some high priests that were very unlearned fellows, as may be gathered from that supposition in Joma; “If the high priest be a wise man, he expounds; if not, they expound to him. If he be accustomed to reading, he reads himself; if not, they read before him.”

But for the sagan of the priests; it was very necessary he should be a man of learning, because his charge was about the things and service of the Temple, and was bound to be always assistant and present there, when the high priest was seldom there, or conversed in those affairs.

Juchasin and Aruch; No one could by right be promoted to the high priesthood, unless he had first been sagan. A good cautelous provision indeed, that so in the time of their saganship they might gain experience in the laws and rituals, and might be the better fitted for the high priest’s chair. But when it came to that pass, that persons were made high priests for their money, and not for their deserts, it might easily happen that very unlearned wretches might sometimes possess that seat. And perhaps Caiaphas himself was of this stamp.

It seems therefore that they led Jesus to Annas first, that Caiaphas might be directed by his counsel; and, himself being but little versed in things of this nature, might proceed in this affair by the steerage of his father-in-law. And let this high priest pardon me if I ascribe that sentence of his, “It is expedient that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish,” not to his prudence and gravity, but to his rashness and cruelty; although the Holy Spirit directed it to its proper end, which the high priest himself did not dream of.

There might be another reason why they led Christ before Annas first; but that I shall speak of anon.

[Which was the high priest that same year.] If the Gloss which I had upon these very same words, Joh 11:51, will not so well fit here as they did there, we may add this also, which will suit well enough in both places; that is, that there was so great a vicissitude and change in the high priesthood, there being a new high priest almost every year, that it was not unnecessary to set down this particular circumstance, Caiaphas was high priest for that year.

“In the second Temple, which stood but four hundred and twenty years, there were more than three hundred high priests within that time. Of these four hundred and twenty years, deduct those forty wherein Simeon the Just ministered, and those eighty wherein Jochanan sat, and those ten wherein Ismael Ben Phabi, and (as it is said) those eleven wherein Eleazar Ben Harsom governed; and then reckon, and you will find that hardly any other high priest sat out his whole year.”

But this number of high priests is very much lessened in Vajicra Rabba; “under the first Temple, because they that served therein served in the truth, there were but eighteen high priests, the father, the son, and grandson successively. But under the second Temple, when that honour came to be obtained by money [there are also that say how they murdered one another by charms and witchcrafts], there were fourscore high priests served in that time: fourscore and one, say some; fourscore and two, say others; and there are that say fourscore and four. Amongst these, Simeon the Just sat forty years: but when the place was bought and sold, the years of enjoying it were cut short. The story goes of one that sent his son with two bushels of silver [to purchase the high priest’s office], and the bushels themselves were silver. Another sent his son with two bushels of gold, and the bushels themselves were of gold too.”

As to this difference of numbers, we will not much trouble our heads about it: perhaps the Gemarists might reckon the sagans together with the high priests, for they were indeed deputed to minister in their stead, if any uncleanness had happened to them. Let there be fourscore high priests, or thereabouts, it is certain that so frequent were the changes and successions amongst them, that the high priest of this year was hardly so the year that went before or that followed after. Although indeed in this Caiaphas it was something otherwise, yet did the evangelist justly and properly enough add this clause, that he was the high priest that same year; tacitly noting the common state of affairs as to the office of high priest at that time.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Joh 18:13. And led him to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas which was high priest of that year. The word first is worthy of notice. It may be used only with reference to the narrative that follows; but it is also possible that we have here another instance, similar to that which we have already met in chap. Joh 3:24, of the clear and decided manner in which the writer of the Fourth Gospel corrects impressions drawn from the incomplete statements of the earlier Gospels. In the latter we read only of a hearing before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, and no mention is made of Annas. That Jesus was taken before Annas first is the statement of John, and the very distinctness with which it is made is no small evidence that we are dealing with real history.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

ARRAIGNMENT OF JESUS AND DENIAL OF PETER

Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72; Luk 22:54-62;Joh 18:13-27. And they led Him first to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It is said that there was a controversy between the Jews and Romans in reference to the high-priesthood, the latter favoring Annas and the former Caiaphas. I visited the house of Caiaphas and the judgment-hall during both my tours in Jerusalem. The presumption is, the tribunal of Annas was in the same house, as it is very large. N.B. All the houses in Jerusalem are stone.

Hence their durability.

And Caiaphas was the one counseling the Jews that it is profitable for one man to die for the people. This is an example in which God, at least momentarily, imparted the gift of prophecy to an unconverted man, his official position giving him a prominence highly conducive to the efficacy of his prophecy.

And Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the judgment-hall of the high priest. You see here, John is speaking of himself, as he never calls his own name. Gnostos, known, is claimed also to convey the idea of kinship. From considerations, doubtless, of this character, Caiaphas permitted him to go along with them by the side of Jesus, the soldiers mistaking him for a Jewish priest, because of the robe with which it is said he was invested, having procured it at the house of Rabbi Amos, a friend of Jesus. Such was the affright of the other nine that they kept hidden away at a distance, Peter leaving them, and venturing to follow along with the crowd after Jesus; while, as you see, John remained with him unmolested, and of course not recognized except by Caiaphas, or he would have gotten into the same trouble which overtook Peter.

And Peter stood at the door without. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came out, and spoke to the porter, and led in Peter. And the servants and officers having made a fire because it was cold, were standing round it, and warming themselves. They have no chimneys to the houses in Jerusalem; but as this was April 13th, about 2 A.M., it was quite chilly, and they built a fire in the open court of the great quadrangular building, and were warming round it, while Jesus stood at the tribunal of Caiaphas in the judgment-hall.

And Peter was standing with them warming. Then the damsel porter says to Peter, Art thou not one of the disciples of this Man? He says, I am not. And Simon Peter was standing warming; then they said, Art thou not of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. Mar 14:68-70 : And he went out into the portico, and the cock crew. And the damsel seeing him again, began to speak to those standing by, This man is one of them. And he denied it. Joh 18:26-27 : One of the servants of the chief priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee with Him in the garden? Then Peter again denied, and immediately the cock crew. Now, see that you get this whole matter clear in reference to Peters denial. Remember, the building is a large quadrangular, with an open court in the center, roofless. Here, while Peter is warming by the fire, the damsel doorkeeper identifies and interrogates him. He positively denies that he is one of the disciples of the Man then on trial in the contiguous judgment- hall. Then Peter goes away from the fire, and is standing in the portico leading from the open court into the judgment-hall. There the same damsel porter again recognizes and interviews him, certifying that he is one of that Mans disciples. Again Peter denies, with an oath (doubtless of affirmation). Now, after a few minutes, while Peter is still in the portico, the kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off with a sword, accuses him, very positively identifying him obviously.

Mat 26:74. Then he began to anathematize and swear, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew. The E. V. curse and swear is very likely to mislead the reader into the conclusion that Peter indulged in blasphemy and profanity, which is unwarranted in the original, which simply conveys the idea that he anathematized; i.e., confirmed his statement by invoking an anathema on himself, and used an oath of affirmation. The idea that he cursed and swore, after the manner of wicked people, indulging in blasphemy and profanity, is not sustained by the Greek. You must remember, however, that Jesus condemns all sorts of swearing, except the oath of affirmation administered by persons in authority, as you see He Himself responded when under oath administered by Caiaphas. Of course, Peter was guilty of falsification in a very aggravated form, augmenting it by the invocation of an anathema and by the oath of affirmation, in all probability using some trivial oath, like swearing by the temple. The solution of the matter is, Peter felt that his life was in danger, more especially when accused the third time by the kinsman of a man whose ear he had cut off. Peters courage was all right till Jesus made Him put up the sword and let His enemies alone; then a reaction took place, intensified by these accusations, so that he gave way to fear, and acted foolishly and wickedly, denying his Lord and confirming his denial by an oath.

Luk 22:60-62. And immediately, he still speaking, the cock crew. And the Lord, turning, looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him, Before the cock crows, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And having gone out, he wept bitterly. Mar 14:72 : And having gone out, he continued to weep. The third denial was there in the portico, where the people were standing aside a little, when Jesus, turning His head, looked on him so impressively as to remind him of everything He had told him about the three denials, simultaneously breaking his heart, and inundating him with gushing penitential tears, so that he rushes out of the crowd, and, as Mark says, continued to weep, Mark and Luke adding their testimony that he wept bitterly. Precipitation was Peters great and prominent infirmity, and when manipulated by Satan a terrible stumbling- block as in the above case, when, giving way to fear, he denied his Lord; not, as E. V. would lead you to infer, indulging in blasphemous oaths, horrific to think of and especially on the part of an apostle, yet not only certifying that he knew Him not, but even confirming his repudiation by solemn imprecations and an oath of affirmation. But when sanctified by the Holy Ghost, this thunderbolt impetuosity became a mighty enginery, pre- eminently qualifying him for the apostolical seniority and leadership with which the Holy Spirit honored him on the day of Pentecost as well as subsequently. We may recognize this fact, somewhat in his favor, that he followed on, manifesting a desire to help his Lord if possible, while the other nine fled away, seeking places of safety. We are no apologists for Peters cowardly repudiation of his Lord, even under these trying circumstances; yet we do believe that the popular verdict against him, as a rule, is more condemnatory than he deserves. His unworthy conduct, however, demonstrates the crying necessity of the second work of grace. After his Pentecostal baptism, we see him serving as apostolical speaker, facing the combined authorities of Church and State, preaching all day, and spending the ensuing night in jail. From that notable hour, on Sunday morning, when the Holy Ghost and fire descended on them from heaven, till he was nailed to the cross on the Campus Martius in Rome, he was never known to flicker an iota, amid the combined antagonism of earth and hell. He truly lived a hero and died a martyr.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 13

Annas was before this time the high priest, but he had been deposed. He was a man of considerable distinction, still possessing a great degree of influence, and retaining his title, of office.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

18:13 {6} And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

(6) Christ is brought before an earthly high priest to be condemned for our blasphemies, that we might be acquitted by the everlasting high Priest himself.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The soldiers evidently led Jesus to the residence of the high priest. The location of this building is uncertain, though the traditional site is in the southern part of old Jerusalem just west of the Tyropoeon Valley. [Note: See the map "Jerusalem in New Testament Times" at the end of these notes.]

Both high priests evidently occupied the same building. One was Annas, the former high priest whom the Jews still regarded as the legitimate high priest since the high priesthood under the Mosaic Law was for life. He served as the official high priest from A.D. 6 to 15 when the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus deposed him. Five of Annas’ sons plus his son-in-law, Caiaphas, succeeded him in this office. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 20:1:9.] Consequently it was natural that the Jews regarded Annas as the patriarch and the true high priest and that he continued to exert considerable influence throughout his lifetime. The other high priest was Caiaphas, Annas’ son-in-law whom the Romans had placed in the office in A.D. 18 where he remained until A.D. 36. Annas was the first of the two men to interview Jesus.

"That year" refers to the fateful year of Jesus’ death (i.e., A.D. 33).

The High Priests of Israel (ca. A.D. 6-36)

Annas (ca. A.D. 6-15)	Unofficial high priest with Caiaphas during Jesus’ trial (Luk 3:2; Joh 18:13; Joh 18:24) Unofficial high priest who, with Caiaphas, tried Peter and John (Act 4:6)
Eleazar (ca. A.D. 16-17)	Son of Annas whose name does not appear in the New Testament
Caiaphas (ca. A.D. 18-36)	Son-in-law of Annas Official high priest during Jesus’ earthly ministry (Luk 3:2; Mat 26:3; Mat 26:57; Joh 11:49-50) With Annas tried Peter and John (Act 4:6)

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

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles