Tlie object of tlie Jews in bringing our Lord before the liigb priest and in the Sanhedrim first, is very plain. They wished to convict him of heresy and blasphemy, and then after that to denounce him to the Romans.
Augustine thinks that Caiaphas arranged that our Lord should be taken to Annas first, because he was his father-in- law. He also thinks that these two held the office of high priest, each in his turn, year by year. Calvin thinks that our Lord was only taken to Annas first, because his house \iappened to be convenient, till the high priest and council assembled Cyril and Musculus think that Annas was the conti ver and designer of all done against Christ.
Cyril here interposes the verse which in most Bibles cornea in as twenty-fourth : " Annas at once sent Him bound to Caia- phas the high priest," Luther, Flacius, and Beza, incline to approve of this. But it is fair to say that there is great lack of authority for this change.
Many commentators think that Jesus was taken to Annas first, by way of exhibiting to that old " enemy of all righteous- ness "the triumphant success of the attempt to capture the prisoner, whom the Sanhedrim had agreed to slay. They think that he was just shown to Annas, and then passed on to Caia- phas. But I cannot think this probable. I hold, with Alford and Ellicott, that our Lord was examined by Annas.
Cornelius a'Lapide suggests that Annas was very likely the person with whom Judas bargained to betray our Lord for money ; and that when the capture was effected, Judas brought the prisoner to the house of Annas, and remained there to claim his price, after Annas had seen Him. He observes with some acuteness that Judas does not appear after this in the history of the examination of our Lord.
Lightfoot quotes a Jewish writer, who says that " in the sec- ond temple, which only stood four hundred and twenty years, there were in that time more than three hundred high priests ! "
Henry remarks, " It was the ruin of Caiaphas that he was high priest that year, and so became a ringleader in putting Christ to death. Many a man's advancement has lost him hia reputation ; and he would not have been dishonored if he had not been preferred and promoted."
14. — [Now Caiaphas was he, etc.] This verse contains one of John's peculiar explanatory comments, and as such comes in parenthetically. It is as though he said, " Let us not forget that this was the very Caiaphas, who after the raising of Laza- rus, had said publicly that it was expedient that one mau should die for the people. Behold how he is made the uncon- scious instrument of bringing that saying to pass, though in a widely different sense from that which he intended 1 " Calvin compares him to Balaam.