and Christ's great compassion, then Peter's fall has not been recorded in vain.
Notes. John xvin. 12—27.
12. — [Then the hand and the captain, etc.] This verse begins tlie story of our Lord when He was actually in the hands of His deadly enemies. For the first time in His earthly ministry we see Him not a free agent, but submitting to be a passive sufferer, and allowing His foes to work their will. Tht Hst miracle had been wrought in vain. Like a malefactor He Is seized and put in chains.
The " captain " must mean the Roman officer who com- manded the " band," cohort, or detachment, which was sent to apprehend our Lord. The " officers " must mean the civil ser- vants of the priests who accompanied them. The " binding " must mean the putting of chains or handcuffs on our Lord's arms and wrists.
13. — [And led Him aicay to Annas, etc,] This is a fact which is mentioned by no Gospel-writer except John. The explanation of it is probably something of this kind. In the time when our Lord Jesus was on earth, the office of the high priest among the Jews was filled up with the utmost disorder and irregular- ity. Instead of the high priest being high priest for life, he was often elected for a year or two, and then deposed, and his office given to another. There were often living- at one time several priests who had served the office of high priest, and then ceased to hold it, like sheriffs or mayors among ourselves. In the case before us Annas appears, after ceasing to be high priest himself, to have lived in the same palace with his son-in- law Caiaphas, and to have assisted him as an assessor and ad- viser in the discharge of his duties, which from his age and official experience he would be well qualified to do. Remem- bering this, we may understand our Lord being " led away to Annas first," and then passed on by him to Caiaphas. So inti- mate were the relations between the two, that in Luke iii. 2 we are told that " Annas and Caiaphas were high priests." In Acts iv. 6, Annas is called " the high priest." Yet it is very certain that Caiaphas was the acting high priest the year that our Lord was crucified. John distinctly asserts it.
The gross inconsistency of the Jews in making such ado about the law of Moses, while they permitted and tolerated such entire departures from its regulations about the high priest's office, is a curious example of what blindness uncon- verted men may exhibit. As to there being two high priests at the same time, we must in fairness remember that even in holy David's time " Zadok and Abiathar were the priests." (3 Sam. XX. 25.) The gross irregularity in our Lord's time consisted in making the high priest's office an annual one.