The Examination Before Annas

S. John xviii. 12, 13, 19–24 (supplementary)

It is necessary at this point to turn aside from S. Mark’s Gospel, for the stage of our Lord’s life upon which we now enter is so complicated that it requires a careful consideration of the fourfold record to make it intelligible. Critics have approached it too often in a hostile spirit, exaggerating trifles and widening discrepancies, till they have been compelled to pronounce the different accounts wholly irreconcilable. A reverent investigation has satisfied us that, after legitimate allowance has been made for circumstances, it is possible to weave the details of the terrible story into a fairly explicit and consistent whole. Feeling that hypercriticism is rebuked by the solemnity of the subject, we “take the shoes from off our feet” in the presence of the awe-inspiring fact, that we are about to witness a trial in which the Prisoner at the bar is none other than He before Whose tribunal we shall all be judged at the last day.

It may very fitly be divided into six separate stages or acts. Before Annas, before Caiaphas in his own palace, before the Sanhedrim in lawful assembly, before Pilate the first time, before Herod, and again before Pilate for the final sentence. Only four of these are recorded by S. Mark. Two preliminary difficulties call for notice. Two persons, Annas and Caiaphas, are spoken of as High Priests, whereas we know that there could not be more than one holding the office at any given time. Again, the palace where S. Peter denied our Lord seems in one place to belong to Annas, in another to Caiaphas. Both admit of explanation. We find that Annas had been High Priest some time before, but for political reasons had been deposed by the Roman Governor. The history of the times shows that he was a man of commanding influence, and his hold upon the Jews was such that they refused, as far as they dared, to recognise the deposition, but continued to regard him as their chief-pontiff, and to designate him in familiar language by the high-priestly title. The man actually in legal possession of the office at this time — “the High Priest of the year,” as he is significantly spoken of — was Caiaphas; and when the Jews designate him “High Priest,” it is only, as we should say, under protest, because the State, which they were afraid openly to disobey, compelled them to do so. Thus we see in the eyes of the Jews, by whose laws the office was inalienable and for life, Annas was regarded as their rightful High Priest, while Caiaphas was legally in possession of the dignity and title.

The question of locality is even more easily explained. Annas, we are told, was father-in-law to Caiaphas. What more natural than that they should occupy the same official residence, each with his separate suite of rooms and offices, but all within the same area, round the same courtyard? What more natural than that the first thought of Caiaphas, on his elevation to the office, should be to see his dethroned father-in-law reinstated in his rightful home? What more expedient, again, than that in those most troublous times, the youthful and inexperienced Caiaphas should be able to consult, without inconvenience, and as occasion might arise, one who was accounted by the general verdict the most influential man in Jerusalem? Whether then it is the palace of Annas or of Caiaphas that is spoken of, it is one and the same building.

Now it was past midnight when Judas, and the Temple guard, and the military escort from Pilate, started to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. It would seem that they succeeded sooner than they expected, for the Court was not ready to try Him when they reached the palace. They at once decided that He should be taken before Annas. We have no difficulty in suggesting motives which may have led them to such a decision. The Jews would like to give their favourite the satisfaction of seeing the common Enemy of their nation a prisoner, or it was a mark of deference to his position, which they would gladly pay, that he should be the first to examine Him; or perhaps — and it may have weighed with greater force than either of the above — they felt that the astute, far-seeing Annas was likely in such a preliminary examination to hit upon the best grounds of accusation for Caiaphas to urge in the legal court.

But whatever their object, they brought Him before Annas. He questioned Him, we are told, about His disciples and His doctrine, and it is plain enough what his design was in so doing. He wished to make out that He belonged to some secret Society, and was connected with a deep-laid plot for promoting revolution. It would have been an excellent charge to press before the Roman Governor, for the executive power is generally alive to informations about suspected conspiracy. But our Lord repudiated the charge, or rather high priesthood of Eleazar and Caiaphas. The four other sons followed Caiaphas. refused to be interrogated, appealing to the publicity of His whole conduct, to the crowds which had nocked to His preaching, and the multitudes He had healed. Let him summon the worshippers from the synagogue at Capernaum, or from yonder Temple, where He had spoken so openly. Let him call up the blind and the lame, the halt and the maimed, the lepers and the possessed of devils, to whom He had ministered almost more than to any others. Let these bear witness what He had taught; whether He was the secret intriguer, the seditious revolutionist that Annas suggested. And He reminded him that by the laws of justice witnesses must be called to establish every charge. “Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard Me what I said unto them. They know what I said.”

And then some brutal attendant of Annas — tradition has aggravated the injury by saying that it was Malchus whose wound Jesus had just healed — knowing that He was defenceless, without a human friend of any kind to protect Him, smote Him cruelly on the face. To the lasting shame of Annas he suffered the cowardly blow to pass unrebuked. The injured Prisoner, instead of scathing His assailant with indignant scorn, checked every expression, every sign of resentment. How unlike what we should have done! How unlike even S. Paul himself when he was placed in similar circumstances, and answered with righteous anger and indignation, “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?” But why this mighty contrast? this unparalleled meekness? It was the perfect illustration of His teaching, “Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” It had been predicted two ages before by Isaiah that He should “give His back to the smiters and His cheeks to them that plucked off the hair;” and by Micah, that they should “smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek;” and even the Sibyl had added the prediction that “the hands of the unclean should smite their God.”

And here was the beginning of the fulfilment. It was only the beginning, for again and again we shall see it repeated with increasing severity, till the very dregs of ill-treatment shall be wrung out, and the tale of derision completely exhausted.

“Annas then sent * Him bound unto Caiaphas the High Priest.” Such are the words with which the first act of this terrible drama closes. Jesus is bound. He Who came “to preach deliverance to the captive,” and “to set at liberty them that are bruised,” is Himself in bonds. He might, we know, have “burst those bands asunder,” and rent them like withes with more than Samson’s strength, but prophecy must be fulfilled. And in like manner, as it was by His stripes that we should be healed, by His abasement that we have been exalted, by His Death that we might live, even so it was ordained that by His captivity He should open the prison doors, and purchase for us the liberty with which He would set all men free — the perfect freedom — “the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

Note: He was sufficiently powerful to secure the High Priest’s office for no less than five of his sons besides his son-in-law. Lightfoot holds that he was deputy High Priest, or “Sagan;” Selden that he was President of the Council, or “Nasi.”

Note: Possibly Eleazar, Annas’s son, who had preceded Caiaphas, may have reinstated his father. But there was an interval of a year between the

Note: There is great division of opinion as to whether the questioner was Annas or Caiaphas. For the former there are among others SS. Chrysostom and Augustine, Olshausen, Lange, Neander, Ellicott, and Luthardt. For the latter Luther, Grotius, Bengel, and De Wette. Westcott suggests that the examination took place in the chamber of Annas in the presence of Caiaphas who took part in it.

Note: Such conduct was strictly forbidden by Jewish law. Bynaeus, ii. 320, enters into particulars of the penalties incurred thereby: if with the open hand 200 drachmas, with the fist 400. Cf. Lange, iii. 234, etc.

Note: Cf. marg. S. John xviii. 2, “with a rod” for “with the palm of his hand.”

Note: “Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas,” A.V., but it is ungrammatical to render the aorist aircTeiXev as a pluperfect.