Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:19
The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
19. The high priest then ] Rather, therefore ( Joh 18:3), connecting what follows with Joh 18:13-14. Again we are in doubt as to who is meant by the high-priest (see on Joh 18:15), but it will be safest to consider that Caiaphas is meant throughout. Neither hypothesis is free from difficulty. If the high priest here is Caiaphas, the difficulty is to explain Joh 18:24 (see note there). But we may suppose that while Annas is conducting the examination Caiaphas enters and takes part in it.
of his disciples, &c.] It was hoped that some evidence might be obtained which would be of service in the formal trial that was to follow.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples – To ascertain their number and power. The charge on which they wished to arraign him was that of sedition, or of rebellion against Caesar. To make that plausible, it was necessary to show that he had made so many disciples as to form a strong and dangerous faction; but, as they had no direct proof of that, the high priest insidiously and improperly attempted to draw the Saviour into a confession. Of this he was aware, and referred him to the proper source of evidence – his open, undisguised conduct before the world.
His doctrine – His teaching. The sentiments that he inculcated. The object was doubtless to convict him of teaching sentiments that tended to subvert the Mosaic institutions, or that were treasonable against the Roman government. Either would have answered the design of the Jews, and they doubtless expected that he – an unarmed and despised Galilean, now completely in their power – would easily be drawn into confessions which art and malice could use to procure his condemnation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. Asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.] He probably asked him by what authority, or in virtue of what right, he collected disciples, formed a different sect, preached a new doctrine, and set himself up for a public reformer? As religion was interested in these things, the high priest was considered as being the proper judge. But all this, with what follows, was transacted by night, and this was contrary to established laws. For the Talmud states, Sanhed. c. iv. s. 1, that – “Criminal processes can neither commence not terminate, but during the course of the day. If the person be acquitted, the sentence may be pronounced during that day; but, if he be condemned, the sentence cannot be pronounced till the next day. But no kind of judgment is to be executed, either on the eve of the Sabbath, or the eve of any festival.” Nevertheless, to the lasting infamy of this people, Christ was judicially interrogated and condemned during the night; and on the night too of the passover, or, according to others, on the eve of that feast. Thus, as I have remarked before, all the forms of justice were insulted and outraged in the case of our Lord. In this his humiliation his judgment was taken away. See Ac 8:33.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Questions about sedition or rebellion belonged not to the judge of this court, but fell under the cognizance of the Roman governor, they being now a conquered people, and tributary to the Romans; who, though themselves heathens, granted the Jews their liberty as to religion, and courts in order there unto; as also a liberty of courts for civil causes: the high priest therefore saith nothing to Christ about his being a King, but only inquires of him about his doctrine. What particular questions he propounded to him we do not read; only in general he inquired about the doctrine he had preached, and the disciples he had sent out, which was one and the same cause, to see if he could bring him under the guilt of a false prophet; for that, and blasphemy, and idolatry, were three principal causes that fell under the cognizance of this court, as appeareth from Deu 13.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19-21. The high priest . . . askedJesus of his disciples, and of his doctrineprobably to entrapHim into some statements which might be used against Him at thetrial. From our Lord’s answer it would seem that “His disciples”were understood to be some secret party. (Also see on Mr14:54.)
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The high priest then asked Jesus,…. Being now brought from Annas to Caiaphas, who was the high priest and mouth of the sanhedrim, and to whom it appertained to hear and try a cause relating to doctrine. And what he did was by putting questions to him, instead of opening the charge against him, and calling for witnesses to support it. The person he interrogated was a greater high priest than himself; was that prophet Moses spoke of, to whom the Jews were to hearken, and no other than the Son of God, and King of Israel; who, when at twelve years of age, asked the doctors questions, and answered theirs, to their great astonishment. He first inquires
of his disciples, not so much who they were, and what they were, and how many they were, and where they were now, as for what purpose he gathered them together; whether it was not with some seditious views to overturn the present government, and set up himself as a temporal prince; and this he did, that he might be able to send him, with a charge against him, to the Roman governor: he did not ask for his disciples to come and speak on his behalf, if they had anything to say for him, which, by their canons p, was allowed and encouraged:
“if any of the disciples (of the person accused) says, I have a crime to lay to his charge, they silence him; but if one of the disciples says, I have something to say in his favour, they bring him up, and place him between them; nor does he go down from thence all the day; and if there is anything in what he says, , “they hearken to him”.”
The Jews indeed pretend q that after Jesus was found guilty, a herald went before him forty days declaring his crime, and signifying, that if anyone knew anything worthy in him, to come and declare it; but none were found: but this is all lies and falsehood, to cover their wickedness; no disciple of his was allowed to speak for him. The high priest next asked Jesus
of his doctrine; not for the sake of information and instruction, nor to see whether it was according to the Scriptures; but if it was a new doctrine, and his own, and whether it tended to idolatry or blasphemy, and whether it was factious and seditious, that so they might have wherewith to accuse him; for though they had got his person, they were at a loss for an accusation; and yet this self-same man that put these questions, and was fishing for something against him, had before given counsel to put him to death, right or wrong: all this was doing, and these questions were put to Jesus, whilst Peter was denying him.
p T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 40. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 8. q T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 43. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Asked (). First aorist active indicative of , to question, usual meaning. This was Annas making a preliminary examination of Jesus probably to see on what terms Jesus made disciples whether as a mere rabbi or as Messiah.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Asked [] . Or, questioned.
Doctrine [] . Rev., better, teaching.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “The high priest then asked Jesus,” (ho oun archiereus erotesen ton lesoun) “Then the high priest questioned Jesus,” quizzed or interrogated Him.
2) “Of his disciples,” (peri ton matheron autou) “Concerning his disciples,” His followers who had companied, with Him through His ministry, many of whom were with Him in the Jerusalem area, Joh 15:16; Joh 15:26-27. He sought to determine if He were claiming to be a simple Rabbi or a Messiah.
3) “And of his doctrine.” (kai peri tes didaches autou) “And concerning his teaching or doctrine,” which He had openly taught in their temple, yet none dared challenge, arrest, or detain Him in the daylight hours, Joh 3:19-20; Luk 22:52-53.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19. The high priest then asked Jesus. The high priest interrogates Christ, as if he had been some seditious person, who had split the Church into parties by collecting disciples; and he interrogates him as if he had been a false prophet, who had endeavored to corrupt the purity of the faith by new and perverse doctrines. Our Lord (140) Jesus Christ, having completely and faithfully discharged the office of teacher, does not enter into a new defense; but, that he may not abandon the cause of truth, he shows that he was prepared to defend all that he had taught. Yet he likewise reproves the impudence of the high priest, who inquires about a matter perfectly well known, as if it had been doubtful. Not satisfied with having rejected the Redeemer offered, together with the salvation promised to them, they likewise condemn all the exposition of the Law.
(140) “ Nostre Seigneur.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) The high priest then asked Jesus.Comp. Notes on Joh. 18:15. By the high priest is probably-meant Caiaphas, though this preliminary investigation was held before Annas, and in his house, or that part of the high priests palace occupied by him.
Of his disciples, and of his doctrine.This was the general subject of a series of questions. He asked, we may think, about the number of Christs followers; the aim they had in view; the principles which He had taught them. The object of the questions was apparently to find some technical evidence in Christs own words on which they may support the charges they are about to bring against Him in the legal trial before Caiaphas.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. The high priest Which high priest? Annas or Caiaphas? It is clear that Jesus is not sent to Caiaphas until Joh 18:24, upon which see our note. It is also clear that at Joh 18:13 Jesus is led to the high priest Annas. It is also clear that this is a different examination from the one given by Matthew, as taking place before Caiaphas. We hold, therefore, decidedly with those who maintain that the high priest of this verse is Annas. That Matthew (Mat 26:57) omits the leading to Annas, does not contradict the fact. But in fact the ancient opinion that both high priests had office in the same extended palace may be considered as solving the whole difficulty. Peter went to the house of the high priest; he denied Christ while Christ was before Annas; and Christ was sent from one part of the palace to the other, by Annas to Caiaphas.
Asked Jesus Before this venerable dignitary, who was high priest before the prisoner was born, the youthful Jesus presents himself in bonds. During his repeated visits to Jerusalem, his teachings in the streets and preaching in the temple, probably Jesus had never been recognized by either high priest; while Jesus probably had seen them both in the exercise of their public office. Yet his name, his teachings, his miracles, and his popularity could not have been unknown to either; for, in fact, the beloved disciple, John, (Joh 18:15,) was known to the high priest. Annas was a Sadducee; a sect which, denying future punishment, endeavoured to deter from crime by severity of judgment in the present world. Before this haughty magistrate the Saviour stands, with little reason to expect mild dealing.
Asked Jesus of his disciples doctrine The first thought of Annas is, Who are the disciples, the supporters, the party, of this insurgent. He doubtless had lately heard of their ushering Jesus, with triumphal procession and great popular commotion, into the capital. How strong a party can he rally? And what are their real doctrines, as by him explained, religious or political? Have they a powerful secret combination to destroy the temple, abolish the priesthood, and overthrow the state?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘The High Priest then asked Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the Temple where all the Judaisers come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why are you questioning me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them. Behold, these know the things that I said.”
There is no hint here of a court scene. It was merely a preliminary investigation. The haughty Annas had had Him brought in in order to subject Him to questioning. ‘About his disciples’ may suggest that he was looking for information about the possibility of an insurrection, or he may simply have been trying to imply the fact. But Annas was not really seeking truth. He was trying to build up a case against Jesus by careful questioning.
Aware of this Jesus replied indirectly, in a way that threw the accusations back at Annas. He had hidden nothing, He pointed out, and He had always taught openly because He had nothing to hide. There were no secret meetings or instructions. Everything was open and above board. Annas had only to ask these people themselves, and he would learn what had been said. There was no need to question Him. There were plenty of witnesses. So the unblemished Lamb opened Himself up for examination.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The preliminary hearing:
v. 19. The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine.
v. 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.
v. 21. Why askest thou Me? Ask them which heard Me what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said.
v. 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?
v. 23. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?
v. 24. Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest. While they were waiting for the members of the Sanhedrin to assemble for an extraordinary session, Hannas, who is here called high priest by courtesy, as a former incumbent of the office, had a preliminary, private hearing with Jesus. He asked Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching. The information might be of value in several respects. He may have wanted to get the names of the disciples for future use, and a summary of Christ’s teaching in order to garble the information to suit his ends. Or Hannas may simply have wanted to find out whether Jesus was making disciples as simple rabbi or as avowed Messiah. In either event the answer of the Lord was to be used against Him in the trial. And therefore Jesus very properly referred Hannas to His plain and open speaking before the whole world. He had spoken without reserve to anybody and everybody that cared to hear. Both in synagogues and in the Temple, wherever occasion offered, the Lord had taught, where all the Jews regularly assembled. Nothing had He spoken in secret. This applies even to such speeches as He had made in the presence of His disciples only, for even at such times He had taught them facts which they were to reveal to the world at the proper time. Christ’s public doctrine contained everything that any person needed to come to a conclusion regarding His person and office. “But that Christ occasionally taught His disciples something privately, that does not concern His office of teaching and His public preaching; the office of teaching is public, for He had preached and taught publicly in the boat, on the land, on the mountains, in the synagogues, and in the Temple. In addition, He instructed His disciples privately and apart. Both, then, is true, namely, that Christ taught publicly and privately, but thus that His private teaching might also become public and nothing remain in a corner, nor in hiding. ” It was a just demand of the Lord’s, therefore, that Hannas at this time apply to those that heard His preaching and hear their testimony. Jesus does not want to repeat here what He had so often taught and testified to. Three years and more He had attended to this part of His office; now the time had come to suffer and die. Note: In the kingdom of Christ everything has its time, also public teaching and preaching. If in some country, where the Word has been established, the majority of the people refuse to listen, then Christ begins to withdraw the pure preaching and takes His Gospel elsewhere. If a person therefore neglects preaching and the Word, he will have to account for his contempt with a severe reckoning. Such a one may in the hour of his death desire to hear of the one thing needful, and will find himself without the comfort of the Gospel. God is not mocked! When Jesus rebuked the former high priest with these words, one of the servants of the Sanhedrin that was standing nearby had the impudence to slap Jesus in the face with his flat hand, a cowardly and unjustified blow. He even accompanied his unwarranted outrage with an explanation in the form of the question: Thus dost Thou answer the high priest? But Jesus did not take this blow without a word of reproof for the cowardly servant. If He had spoken evil, the servant should bear witness to that effect, and not undertake to administer a punishment without authority. And again, if His defense had been right and good, how could he dare to strike in such an unwarranted manner? It was a calm, reasonable, but conclusive rebuke, and in no wise out of harmony with the teaching of Jesus concerning the turning of the other cheek. A disciple of Christ will suffer the wrong, as Christ also did, but he may and should under circumstances reprove the injustice. “That He says to the servant: If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, you must understand thus, that there is a great difference between these two, to turn the other cheek and to rebuke with words him that smites us thus. Christ should suffer, but just the same the word is put into His mouth, that He should speak and rebuke what is wrong. ” Meanwhile the purpose of the waiting had been realized, and the trial in the hall of Caiaphas could begin. Therefore Hannas now sent Jesus from his apartments to those of Caiaphas. The Sanhedrin, the spiritual court of the Jews, had convened, and the formal examination could now take place.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 18:19-21. The high priest then asked Jesus The court being duly constituted, and the prisoner placed at the bar, the trial began about break of day. See Luke 22.
66. The high priest asked our Lord, what his disciples were? for what end he had gathered them? whether it was to make himself a king? and what the doctrine was which he taught them? In these questions there was a great deal of art; for as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he had set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have immediately condemned him on his own confession. But to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away hislife, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason,and bade them prove what they laid to his charge by witnesses. “I spake openly, as to the manner; ever, or continually, as to the time; in the synagogue and temple, as to place; in secret have I said nothing;no point of doctrine which I have not taught in public.”It was greatlyto the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness had thus abundant opportunities to have detected him. In his defence, therefore, he appealed, with beautiful propriety, to that part of his character.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 18:19-21 . ] Again connecting the narrative with Joh 18:13-14 , after the episode of Peter.
. . . . . . . ] Annas [213] then put general questions, in keeping with a private hearing of the kind, but well planned, so as to connect something further according to the eventual reply.
Jesus, as far as possible, not to inculpate His disciples (Joh 18:8-9 ), replies, in the first instance (and further questioning was broken off, Joh 18:22 ), only to the second point of the interrogation, and that by putting it aside as something entirely aimless, appealing to the publicity of His life.
, . . .] I , on my part, have frankly and freely (comp. Joh 7:4 , Joh 11:54 ) spoken to the world; . is to be taken subjectively, without reserve , not: openly , which it does not mean, and which is first contained in . The is the whole public , as in Joh 7:4 , Joh 12:19 .
. . . ] in synagogue (see on Joh 6:59 ) and in the temple . He appeals to His work of teaching not merely in Jerusalem , but as He has always carried it on, though He does not mean by to deny His public discourses in other places (in the open air, etc.), but only to express that He never, in the course of His teaching, withdrew Himself from synagogues and from the temple.
, . . .] refers to the temple .
. ] By which, of course, the private instructions given to His disciples (comp. also Mat 10:27 ) are not denied, since it is the ministry of the Teacher of the people that is here in question; and besides, those private instructions do not fall under the category of that which is secret .
-g0- -g0- -g0- .] For what object dost thou, ask me? does not bear the emphasis; otherwise would have been used.
The second , quid , depends on .
. . .] “Hoc jubet lex, a testibus incipi,” Grotius.
] The , not pointing to John and Peter (Ewald).
[213] Not Caiaphas. Hengstenberg imagines the situation: “Annas presides, as it were (?), at the examination, but Caiaphas might not hand over to him the properly judicial function.” So also Godet.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1718
JESUS SMITTEN IN THE HIGH PRIESTS PALACE
Joh 18:19-23. The high-priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. 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. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. 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? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
THE Holy Scriptures are generally considered as containing only matter of historic record; whereas in reality, with the difference only of some outward circumstances, they exhibit a faithful picture of all that is passing at this present day, in ourselves, and in the world around us. Religion is the same now as it always was; and human nature is still the same; and consequently the operations of religion also are the same, whether in those who hate, or those who embrace, it. In the history before us, we must, doubtless, primarily regard our blessed Lord as suffering what God in his determinate counsels had ordained him to suffer for the sins of men: but, if we would reap the full benefit from these occurrences, we must view them in their general aspect, as shewing us,
I.
How religion is opposed
Few will admit at all that religion is opposed in the present day: but daily experience proves that it is still, precisely as in former ages, opposed,
1.
With inveterate prejudice
[The interrogations put to Jesus by the high-priest had the appearance of candour (for the bitterest enemies of Christianity wish to maintain somewhat of the semblance of justice); but they proceeded from nothing but a desire to elicit something from Jesus which should serve as a ground of accusation against him. This was clearly perceived by our blessed Lord; and therefore, instead of suffering himself to be thus ensnared by his blood-thirsty persecutor, he referred him to the very people who were seeking his destruction, that he might learn from them the crimes which they had to lay to his charge. Had the high-priest been sincerely desirous of knowing, from Jesus himself, what his doctrines were, and what he expected of his Disciples, that he might guard the more effectually against any misrepresentations or mistakes, and administer justice with impartiality, our Lord would not have withheld from him the necessary information. But the high-priest had no such objects in view: his design was only to find an occasion against Jesus, either on account of something which should proceed out of his mouth, or as concealing truths which he dared not to avow.
And do we not here see the spirit in which inquiries are still made at this very hour, in relation both to the doctrines of the Gospel, and to the people who profess it? In what a captious way are questions continually put to religious characters, by those who hate the doctrines of the Gospel! The object of the inquirers is, not to gain such a knowledge as shall convince and satisfy their minds, but to draw forth some answer, which shall either really, or in appearance at least, justify their rejection of all true religion. So also in relation to the followers of Christ; their enemies have no wish to hear any thing in their favour: all that they want, is, to collect anecdotes to the disadvantage of those who profess godliness, and to find reasons for holding them up to derision and reproach. The very same spirit which urged on the enemies of Daniel [Note: Dan 6:4-5.], wrought also in the enemies of Jesus [Note: Luk 11:54.], and still reigns, though often cloked under the most specious garb, in all who embrace not the Gospel of Christ [Note: 2Co 11:12.].]
2.
With licentious violence
[Nothing could be more honourable than our Lords appeal to those who surrounded him; since they had all heard his discourses continually in the temple, and were thoroughly disposed to bring their accusations against him, if they were able to lay any thing to his charge. Yet behold, this appeal, instead of being received as a declaration of his innocence, was resented as an indignity offered to the high-priest; and that too in a way which was contrary to all law, or equity, or common humanity: in a court of justice itself, an officer of that court, in the very presence of the judge, struck the prisoner, not only uncondemned, but unheard, yea, and before even an accusation had been brought against him! In what court under heaven would such injustice be tolerated in a common cause? Yet was this passed over without any testimony of disapprobation, either from the judge, or from any of his attendants!
And do we not here see how the rights of Gods people are trampled on by all who choose to persecute and oppress them? Yes verily, the most injurious treatment may be shewn to them, and none will stand up to vindicate their cause. They are neither judged, nor protected by the same laws as other men. Against a godly man acting for his Lord and Saviour, any one may rise, and may insult and injure him, not only with impunity, but with the approbation of many; whilst, if the very same line of conduct were pursued by a professor of godliness against a man of this world, a fire would be kindled in every breast, and a general indignation excited against the offending person. We cannot descend to particulars; but the observation of every man may furnish them in abundance: and, if any one be acquainted with instances of such licentious violence, we desire him only to look at the means which are used to cramp the efforts of the godly, and to arrest the progress of vital godliness; and then to ask himself, What he would think of religious persons, if they were to adopt such measures against the opposers of the Gospel as the opposers of the Gospel adopt towards them? And we will venture to say, that a very few minutes consideration shall convince him, that those who are born after the flesh do still persecute those who are born after the Spirit, and that the descendants of Cain, of Ishmael, and of Doeg, are not by any means extinct.]
3.
With hypocritical pretences
[This officer professed a high regard for order and decorum; but a greater act of indecorum can scarcely be conceived than that which he himself committed at that very time; since the taking for granted that the judge who sat there, to administer justice, would suffer all the rights of justice to be so violated in his very presence, was as severe a reflection upon the judge as could well be cast on a human being. Yet this was the man who complained of a want of order and decorum in our blessed Lord, and made that a plea for the outrage which he himself committed. What hypocrisy was here! yet it is no other than what is practised every day by those who hate the Gospel, and labour to obstruct its progress. Need we go to Rome to hear the plea, that, from the labours of Christs faithful servants, the Church is in danger? With what sanctimonious zeal will many cry out against lectures on a Sabbath evening, as injurious to morality; whilst they never lift up a voice against the theatres, in which so much iniquity abounds! And what concern will many express about the peace of mens minds as disturbed by the Gospel, when they have never, on any occasion whatever, shewn any regard for the spiritual interests of others, or even for the welfare of their own souls! I mean not to say, that the welfare of the Church, and the interests of morality, and the peace of mens minds, ought to be deemed of small importance; for they ought, beyond a doubt, to be regarded with the utmost care and tenderness: but this I say, that they are not uncommonly made a pretext for opposing religion, by persons who on any other occasion would shew no regard for them at all. Rather than not prevail to destroy the Lord Jesus, the Jews would cry out, If thou let this man go, thou art not Csars friend: when they would not have hesitated to throw off Csars yoke at any moment, if they could have attempted it with any prospect of success [Note: Joh 19:12.]. Their loyalty was but a pretext; their only object being to ensure the condemnation of one, whose innocence the very judge himself had repeatedly proclaimed. The truth is, that the godly are a prey, which every man is at liberty to hunt down; and in the taking of which he is at liberty to use any means which his ingenuity may devise [Note: Isa 59:15.].]
But whilst in the conduct of the Jews we see how religion is opposed, we see, in the conduct of our Lord,
II.
How it is to be maintained
None of the weapons which are made use of by the enemies of religion, are to be employed by its friends. If they contend with evil, we are to contend with good, and to overcome evil with good. The cause of Christ must be maintained,
1.
With undaunted firmness
[Our blessed Lord was not intimidated by this rude assault; but, as one who felt that he was possessed of a good conscience, and a good cause, he firmly expostulated with his adversary: If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? Now this shews us, that we are not called to submit to injuries without maintaining that we have still the same rights as other men, and that, when those rights are violated, we have just reason to complain. St. Paul, when a Roman Centurion had bound him with thongs, and was about to scourge him, asserted his right, as a Roman citizen, to be regarded as innocent, till his guilt had been proved in a court of justice [Note: Act 22:25.]: and at another time, after having been unjustly beaten and imprisoned, he would not leave the prison till the magistrates, who had so treated him, should come to fetch him out [Note: Act 16:37.]. Thus we may avoid injuries when no sacrifice of conscience is required: but, rather than violate, in any instance, our duty to God, we must brave all the injuries that can be inflicted on us. The Hebrew Youths have set us an excellent example in this respect. When menaced with being cast into the fiery furnace, they expressed their confidence in God, that he would interpose for their deliverance: but whether such an interposition should be vouchsafed or not, they were determined to hold fast their integrity at all events: Our God will deliver us. But, if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods [Note: Dan 3:18.]. No trials whatever should at any time drive us from this point. Whatever persecutions may arise, we must say with Paul, None of these things move me; neither count I my life dear unto myself. In a word, we must not fear man, who can only kill the body; but fear Him alone, who can destroy both body and soul in hell [Note: Luk 12:4-5.].]
2.
With unruffled patience
[Though our Lords answer was firm, there was not the smallest degree of irritation in it. And herein he shewed how superior he was to any mortal man. Moses was the meekest man upon the face of the earth; yet, when greatly tried, he broke forth into unadvised expressions, which brought the displeasure of God upon him [Note: Num 20:10-12.]. And when Paul was injured precisely in the same way that Jesus was, he resentfully addressed the judge that had so injured him: God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law [Note: Act 23:2-3.]? Our duty in all circumstances is to imitate the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who, as St. Peter informs us, suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps: who, being reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously [Note: 1Pe 2:21-23.]. If we betray any unhallowed temper, our adversaries have so far gained a victory over us. We must, under all circumstances, possess our souls in patience; and let patience have its perfect work, that we may be perfect and entire, lacking nothing.]
From the whole then we may learn,
1.
What to expect
[The servant must not expect to be above his lord. If men called the Master of the house Beelzebub, much more will they those of his household. Our blessed Lord strongly guards us upon this very point: Marvel not, says he, if the world hate you: if it hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you [Note: Joh 15:18-20.]. Nor is it mere hatred that we must expect to encounter, but injuries also, yes, and injuries of the most atrocious kind. If we will live godly in Christ Jesus, we shall assuredly suffer persecution. Let us then count the cost; and be ready to pay it. The pearl of great price is worth it all.]
2.
How to act
[Let us set our Lord Jesus Christ before us as our example. He, when oppressed and afflicted, opened not his mouth: he was brought as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so opened he not his mouth [Note: Isa 53:6.]. O blessed attainment! how rare! how beautiful! To turn the left cheek to him who smites us on the right! to let a man who sues us at the law, and takes away our coat, take away with him our cloak also! and when compelled to go with a man one mile, to accompany him voluntarily another [Note: Mat 5:39-41.]! What hard savings are these to the carnal man! and how difficult to be carried into execution, even by the most spiritual! But, beloved, let us not despair of attaining these things; for the grace of Christ is sufficient for us; and we may rest assured, that, if only we be strong in him, we shall be able to do all things through Christ who strengtheneth us. And it is but a little time that we shall be called to these sacrifices. Soon we shall be beyond the reach of all our adversaries: having suffered with Christ, and overcome through him, we shall soon be glorified together, and sit down with him upon his throne, as he overcame, and is set down with his Father upon his throne [Note: Rom 8:17. Rev 3:21.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
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 I not see thee in the garden with him? (27) Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
John is the only Evangelist which hath recorded this examination of Christ. And the drift of it was, if possible, to discover somewhat more particularly concerning what they deemed blasphemy. See Deu 13 . But though they wished to make this in some measure a cover with the people, yet, as they desired above all things to bring Christ under the Roman power, in order that he might be crucified, and not stoned, as was the punishment for blasphemy, they only designed this examination as preparatory to the bringing him before Pilate. Hence we find, according to the account given by Luke, (Luk 23:1-2 ) that their charge against Christ before Pilate was, that they had found him perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, saying, that he himself was Christ, a King. There is nothing said of blasphemy; this charge would have thrown back Christ upon them, to be judged at their tribunal, which of all things they studied to avoid. Christ must, according to their wishes, be turned over to the civil power, and in this case, crucifixion must be the punishment.
And here I just detain the Reader to remark how the Lord overruled their minds to confess the very reverse of what they intended. First, by declaring that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, according to the Roman custom, for sedition, whereby they confessed that the prediction of the Patriarch Jacob, when he lay a dying, was fulfilled, the sceptre was departed from Judah, and the lawgiver from between his feet, and consequently the Shiloh was come. Gen 49:10 . We have no king (said they) but Cesar! Joh 19:15 . Reader! do not fail to ponder well these things!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Ver. 19. Asked Jesus of his disciples ] Questioned him in the spiritual court first, as a heretic; as afterwards in the temporal court, for a seditious person. So the Papists condemned married priests for Nicolaitanes, in the Synod of Milan, A. D. 1067. Virgilius, a German bishop, and a great mathematician, they condemned for a heretic, for affirming that there were antipodes. a Paulus II, pope, pronounced them heretics that did but name the name Academy, either in jest or in earnest. Innocent II condemned Arnoldus Brixius of heresy, for saying that the clergy should have their temporalities taken away, and be tied to their spirituals only. Bonner objected to Philpot the martyr, that he found written in his book, In me Ioanne Philpotto ubi abundavit peccatum, superabundavit et gratia. And when the bishop of Worcester exhorted Philpot, before he began to speak, to pray to God for grace: Nay, my lord of Worcester, said Bonner, you do not well to exhort him to make any prayer; for this is the thing these heretics have a singular pride in, that they can often make their vain prayers, in the which they glory much: for in this point they are like to certain arrant heretics, of whom Pliny makes mention, that they sing Antelucanos hymnos, &c. Was not this well aimed? Those he spoke of were the primitive Christians, whom Pliny excuseth to Trajan the persecutor. But it is easy for malice to make heresy what it pleaseth, when it is armed with power, and can make havoc at pleasure.
a Those who dwell directly opposite to each other on the globe, so that the soles of their feet are as it were planted against each other; esp. those who occupy this position in regard to us. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19. ] This preliminary enquiry seems to have had for its object to induce the prisoner to criminate himself, and furnish matter of accusation before the Sanhedrim.
., His party, or adherents, as the High Priest would understand His disciples to be; how many, and who they were, and with what object gathered together; and what His customary teaching of them had been. Of these , Jesus says nothing: compare Joh 18:8-9 . But He substitutes for them , to which He had spoken plainly.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 18:19 . “The high priest then interrogated Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching,” apparently wishing to bring out on what terms He made disciples, whether as a simple Rabbi or as Messiah. But Jesus answered: . The high priest’s question was useless. Jesus had nothing to tell which He had not publicly and frequently proclaimed. Similarly Socrates replied to his judges (Plato, Apol. , 33), “If any one says that he has ever learned or heard anything from me in private which the world has not heard, be assured he says what is not true”. “without reserve,” rckhaltslos , Holtzmann. , “to everybody,” to all who cared to hear; cf. Socrates’ . “I always taught in synagogue and in the temple”; the article dropped as we drop it in the phrase “in church”; “where,” i.e. , in both synagogue and temple, “all the Jews assemble”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 18:19-24
19The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. 20Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. 21Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.” 22When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” 24So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
Joh 18:19 “The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching” This refers to Annas, not Caiaphas. Annas was the power behind the throne. He reigned from A.D. 6 to 15. He was immediately followed by his son-in-law and later his five sons and a grandson. Annas, who owned the commercial rights in the temple area, was probably anxious to interrogate the one who cleansed the Temple (possibly twice). It is interesting that Annas was concerned about Jesus’ disciples as well as His teachings.
Joh 18:20 It is certainly true that Jesus taught publicly. However, it is also true that many of His teachings were veiled to the public (cf. Mar 4:10-12). The real issue was spiritual blindness on the part of His hearers.
Jesus’ words and methods of teaching are recorded differently between the Synoptic Gospels and John. The Synoptics have no “I Am. . .” statements. Jesus teaches in parables; John records no parables. It seems to me that the differences may be explained by the Synoptics recording the public teachings of Jesus and John recording the private sessions.
Joh 18:21 “Why do you question Me” In Joh 18:20 Jesus asserts the public nature of His teaching ministry. Jesus was pointing out to Annas that his questions were illegal according to Jewish law and also were public knowledge.
Joh 18:22 “the officers standing nearby struck Jesus saying” This term originally meant “to slap” or “beat with a rod.” It came to mean “a slap with the open hand.” This is an allusion to Isa 50:6. Jesus asserts that if He had done anything wrong, accuse Him; otherwise, why was He being hit?
Joh 18:23 “If. . .if” These are two first class conditional sentences which are assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. Here the first one is a literary way to accent a false reality. Jesus is challenging Annas to bring forth his evidence.
Joh 18:24 The order of these trials is reversed in the Synoptic Gospels.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
asked. Greek. erotao. App-134.
of = concerning. Greek. pen. App-104.
doctrine. To elicit something to be used against Him.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19.] This preliminary enquiry seems to have had for its object to induce the prisoner to criminate himself, and furnish matter of accusation before the Sanhedrim.
., His party, or adherents, as the High Priest would understand His disciples to be; how many, and who they were, and with what object gathered together;-and what His customary teaching of them had been. Of these, Jesus says nothing: compare Joh 18:8-9. But He substitutes for them , to which He had spoken plainly.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:19. , doctrine) The High Priest asks the question, just as if the doctrine of Jesus had crept in (spread gradually) in secret. So the world often wishes to make out of the truth a thing done in a corner. Jesus answers as to His doctrine: there was no need of His answering as to His disciples.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:19
Joh 18:19
The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.-It is not customary in our courts to require a man to testify concerning himself or to convict himself of any wrong. This custom did not obtain in the courts generally of that day. So they question him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Jesus before His Persecutors
Joh 18:19-24
Annas was the father-in-law of the high priest. For many years he had worn the high priests robes, and though now he had nominally retired from his office, he still kept his hands on the reins. He was the most powerful factor in the high-priestly circles. He was awaiting the return of the expedition in the hall of his palace, and at once began a preliminary inquiry, in the hope of extracting something on which to base his case against our Lord. Jesus penetrated his crafty purpose, and referred Annas to the army of spies who had been always on his track. There was no anger in Jesus heart. He desired simply to show how absolutely pure and true His words had been; that though He was exposed to searching scrutiny, yet this secret measure had to be resorted to by Annas to incriminate Him. Jesus did not resist evil, but endeavored to bring His accusers and judges calmly to face their own consciences.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
The high priest
For the order of events on the day of the crucifixion, (See Scofield “Mat 26:57”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
asked: Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Luk 20:20
Reciprocal: Mat 26:62 – Answerest Mar 4:2 – in his Act 1:1 – of Act 4:27 – the people Act 7:1 – Are
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
Jesus was never ashamed of his doctrine (teaching), and really wished it to be known. But the question of the high priest included the disciples as well as the doctrine, which opened the way for the next statement of Jesus.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:19. The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples and of his teaching. Again reserving for the moment any inquiry as to who the high priest here spoken of was, and also as to the special character of the investigation itself, we remark only that the object of the narrative is to direct our attention mainly to Jesus. The Evangelist would place Him before us in the dignity and calmness with which He bore His sufferings, as well as in the consciousness of that perfect innocence through which He was able to confront, and really to defeat, His enemies in what seemed the very height of their power. To this, accordingly, he immediately proceeds.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our Saviour being brought before Caiaphas the high-priest, he examines him concerning his doctrine, and his disciples, pretending him to be guilty of heresy in doctrine, and sedition in gathering disciples and followers.
Our Saviour answers, that as to his doctrine, he had not delivered it in holes and corners, but had taught publicly in the temple and synagogues; and that in secret he had said nothing, that is, nothing contrary to what he had delivered in public. Christ never willingly affected corners; he taught openly, and propounded his doctrine publicly and plainly in the world. A convincing evidence, that both he and his doctrine were of God.
Learn hence, 1. That it is not unusual for the best of doctrines to pass under the odious name and imputation of error and heresy. Christ’s own doctrine is here charges: The high-priest asked Jesus of his doctrine.
2. That the ministers of Christ who have truth on their side, may and ought to speak boldly and openly: I spake openly unto the world. “Veritas nihil erubescit, praeterquam abscondi.” Truth blushes at nothing, except at its being concealed; In secret, says Christ, have I said nothing.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 18:19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lords charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lords character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high- priest so? With so little reverence? Jesus answered With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Mat 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priests father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Mat 26:59-68.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 19-21. The high-priest therefore asked Jesus concerning his disciples and his doctrine. 20. Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in open synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I have said nothing in secret. 21. Why askest thou me?Ask those who have heard me what I have said to them: behold, these know what I have said.
It is generally held that, as the examination took place in the house of Annas, it was he who directed the investigation. But this would imply that the high-priest of Joh 18:13-16 was Annas, which we have seen to be contrary to the natural meaning of John’s narrative. This session was a purely private one; it had its necessary place, as we have seen, in the course of the trial; the presence of the officer in Joh 18:22 implies the official character of the scene. The duty of presiding over it fell, therefore, to the high- priest officially. It has been supposed that Annas was exercising functions here in the character of Ab-beth-din (chief of the court of justice). But this dignity appertained to the high-priest himself (Schurer, p. 413). Keim rightly says (certainly not to support the narrative of John): If Caiaphas was truly the acting high-priest and, at the same time, the soul of the sudden onset which was proposed against Jesus, it belonged to him, and not to his father-in-law, to acquaint himself with the matter and to make a report to the Sanhedrim (iii. p. 322). If it was otherwise, according to John, what purpose would the characterizing of Caiaphas, in Joh 18:13, have served? When, in Joh 18:22, the officer says to Jesus: Answerest thou the high-priest so? it is unnatural to think of another personage than the actual high-priest, the one who has just been expressly designated as such in Joh 18:13-14. Reuss brings forward in opposition to our view Joh 18:24, in which the high-priest must necessarily be anotherpersonage than the one who is called thus in Joh 18:19. At the first glance, this observation appears just. But if Jesus was led away to the house of Annas, it was quite naturally Annas who gave the order to conduct Him to the house of Caiaphas, while yet it would not follow from this fact that it was Annas himself who presided over the preliminary session.
The question proposed to Jesus had as its design to draw from Him an answer suited to give a ground for His condemnation. For there was embarrassment felt respecting the course to be pursued in this matter, as the recourse to the false witnesses proves.
What is asked of Jesus is not the names of His disciples, as if the question were of a list of accomplices; it is information as to the number of His partisans and the principles which serve them as a standard.
Jesus, understanding that they were only seeking to wrest from Him an expression which might be turned to account against Him, simply appeals to the publicity of His teaching. He is not the head of a secret society, nor the propagator of principles which fear the light of day. , without an article (according to the true reading): in synagogal assembly; the word , temple, has the article, because this edifice is unique. When Jesus instructed His disciples in private, it was not for the purpose of telling them something different from what He declared in public. The testimony of the ancient Versions decides in favor of the Alexandrian reading: all the Jews; not, the Jews from all parts or continually.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
JESUS CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN
Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. Then the high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and teaching. Jesus responded to Him, I spoke boldly to the world. I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know the things which I said. He, speaking these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Do you thus answer the high priest? Jesus responded to him, If I spoke wickedly, testify concerning the wickedness; but if truly, why do you smite Me? Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Evidently, Annas and Caiaphas had their tribunals in the same great quadrangular building standing on Mount Zion, and now visited by the thirty thousand pilgrims annually going to Jerusalem. Having first been arraigned at the tribunal of Annas, He is now, about day-dawn, led bound to the tribunal of Caiaphas. You see how the high priest endeavored to make Him confess, hoping to utilize His own testimony against Himself, as they had no witnesses to amount to anything, and thus condescended to a very cowardly stratagem, which even if he had succeeded, the law pronounces the weakest of all evidence. It was awfully barbaric for that officer to smite a prisoner in bonds. You see, Jesus vindicates Himself reminding the man of the criminal impropriety of this uncouth assault upon a defenseless prisoner illustrating the right of all His followers to vindicate themselves from false accusation, violence, and tyranny, and refuting the idea somewhat prevalent that we are never to advocate our rights and vindicate ourselves against the oppression of the wicked.
Luk 22:66. And when it was day, the eldership of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes were assembled, and led Him into the Sanhedrin. As they had been on His track, like bloodhounds, three years, eager to take, His life (but restrained by the fear of the people; and well they might be, because a bloody civil war would have broken out immediately), such is their fear of the people that they attack Him at midnight, aiming to secure the death-warrant and kill Him before day. In this they are disappointed and woefully disconcerted, being unable to convene the Sanhedrin till day dawn, though keeping couriers running at race-horse speed all night, (notifying and urging them up. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of the politico-ecclesiasticism, the successor of the eldership organized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, during their wilderness peregrinations.
Mar 14:55-59. And the high priest and all the Sanhedrin continued to seek testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and they found none. Matthew says false testimony. Of course, they preferred true testimony if they could get it; but as there was none, they were anxious to take any kind they could get. For many continued to testify falsely against Him, and their testimonies were not equal, i. e., they contradicted one another, which in law invalidates both, so that they are thrown out of court. And certain ones, rising up, falsely testified against Him, saying, We heard Him saying, That I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands. Indeed their testimony was not equal; i. e., they contradicted one another. Perhaps some of the witnesses gave it correctly; but you have only to look at Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple, and I will build it in three days, to see that the above witnesses were false, as they testified that He said, I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and build another, made without hands. By comparison, you see that these witnesses did not quote Him correctly, as their testimony would make it mean that great stone edifice standing on Mount Moriah; while He did not mean that at all, but the temple of His body. Why did He not correct them when so grossly misrepresenting Him? Because it would have done no good, as Satan was in them, and they were thirsting for His blood.
Mat 26:62-66. The high priest, standing up, said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What are they witnessing against Thee? And Jesus was silent. Under temptation, the better policy is, like Jesus, to keep silent. You should never speak while under severe provocation. The high priest, responding, said to Him, I assure Thee by the living God, that Thou mayest tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him, Thou sayest it. That is an Oriental form of affirmation. Here, you see, Jesus answers while under oath of affirmation, administered by the high priest. Hence you see His indirect approval appertaining to the civil oath of affirmation. Paul (1Th 5:23) administers a solemn oath to the Thessalonian saints to read his letter to all the members of the Church.
Moreover I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. The first clause of this wonderful prophecy of our Lord was fulfilled when they saw Him rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven from Mount Olivet; while the second clause, coming in the clouds of heaven, will be fulfilled when Jesus shall ride down on a cloud and receive all the kingdoms of this world (Dan 7:9-14) and reign forever. In this wonderful sentence there is not so much as a comma, yet those two clauses are separated by many centuries, the former being verified in a few days, and the latter still pending.
Then the high priest tore His robes, saying, That He blasphemed; what need of testimony have we yet? Behold, now , you have heard His blasphemy. What seems good to you? And they, responding, said, He is worthy of death. Mark says this verdict was unanimous, So here you see the issue of His prosecution before the Sanhedrin They unanimously condemned Him to die for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses. (Lev 24:16.) Thus you see, good and just laws become vehicles of tyranny and persecution when in the hands of bad men, and are no guarantee of fight and justice when the devil is in the administrators. Jesus died under the verdict of Divine law, and so did all the martyrs, there being no trouble about the law; but Satan was in the preachers and ruling elders. So it is this day. Some of the brightest saints that walk beneath the skies, have been excommunicated, while drunkards, libertines, blasphemers, and thieves have been retained without impeachment. Such was the case in the days of Luther and Wesley, and always will be so when Diabolus gets into the clergy and official laity.
Luk 22:63-65. And the men who had charge of Jesus began to mock Him, beating Him; and covering Him, continued to strike His face, and ask Him, saying, Prophesy, who is the one smiting thee? And blaspheming Him as to many other things, they continued to speak against Him. The truth of it is, Jesus had no trial, it was a mockery; to their infinite shame, barbarically abusing Him while a prisoner in chains, which is revolting to the very idea of civil, not to say ecclesiastical administration. Nicodemus certifies that Jewish law never condemned a man till he met his accusers face to face, and had a fair and impartial trial. Festus, the Roman proconsul, makes the same statement in reference to imperial law. Hence, Jesus was mobbed and outlawed. But did He not come into the world to die? Most assuredly; and He would have died to redeem the world from sin, death, and hell if neither Judas nor Caiphas had ever been born. Yet that is no apology for the diabolical treason, perfidy, and murder which they committed, overtly, without excuse.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
18:19 {8} The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
(8) Christ defends his cause, but only slightly, not that he would withdraw himself from death, but to show that he was condemned as someone who was innocent.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
3. Annas’ interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24
John’s version of Peter’s denial is quite similar to those of the other Gospel writers, but His revelation of Jesus’ interrogation by Annas is unique. None of the other evangelists mentioned it.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Clearly Annas was the (unofficial) high priest who conducted this initial informal inquiry (cf. Joh 18:24). He probably asked Jesus about His disciples to ascertain the size of His following since one of the religious leaders’ chief concerns was the power of Jesus’ popularity. Annas’ interest in His teachings undoubtedly revolved around who Jesus claimed to be (cf. 7:12, 47; 19:4). Both subjects were significant since many of the Jews suspected Jesus of being a political insurrectionist.